Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post had improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information) and 18.1(1) (trade secrets of Canada Post), and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the final version of a health and safety strategy report for Canada Post delivered by DuPont Sustainable (DSS) and any related invoicing. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The third party deferred to Canada Post’s position about the application of paragraph 20(1)(b). Canada Post could not show that certain information met all the requirements of subsection 18.1(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b). With respect to paragraph 20(1)(b), it did not show that some of the withheld information was not publicly available, that it was supplied by the third party, or that there was a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.  Under subsection 18.1(1), Canada Post did not show that the information was a trade secret or that it was the confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Canada Post disclose certain information.

Canada Post gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to the Issue Paper titled: "Proposal to Amend CAR 702.19 / CASS 722.19 and CAR 702.21 / CASS 722.21 Carriage of Human External Cargo (HEC) via Helicopter, dated March 2021”. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Transport Canada did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the 30-day period.

The investigation revealed that Transport Canada had been waiting for records from the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) tasked, Safety and Security, which had missed the tasking request, and therefore the records retrieval had to be re-sent.

The Information Commissioner notified Transport Canada of her intention to order Transport Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36^th business day following the date of the final report.

Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it had already provided a response to the access request, advising the complainant that the responsive records were being processed under a separate access request and would be disclosed upon completion of that separate request. The Commissioner advised that Transport Canada’s response to the access request does not constitute a “complete response”, as envisioned by her order and that simply referring to another access request does not fulfill the requirement of providing a complete response. Providing actual access to the records is a key feature of a response, unless the institution is denying access. Therefore, Transport Canada is required to comply with the order.

The Commissioner also recommended that the Minister of Transport develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that Transport Canada’s OPIs will provide responsive records in a timely fashion and develop performance indicators to hold Transport Canada’s senior officials accountable for delays.

The complaint is well founded.