Decisions

The complainant alleged that the National Capital Commission (NCC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), subsection 18(d) (negotiations by government institutions) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records discussing specific renovation projects at Rideau Hall. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of paragraph 16(2)(c) and subsection 18(d) to withhold the records at issue was removed from the scope of the complaint.

During the investigation, the NCC decided to disclose information on four pages that it had withheld under subsection 19(1).

For the remaining information, the NCC could not show that the name, title and contact information of an NCC employee met all the requirements of subsection 19(1). In addition, the NCC did not reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose publicly available personal information.

The Information Commissioner ordered the NCC to disclose the information at issue and to exercise its discretion to disclose publicly available personal information.

The NCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) 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 for communications with the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) regarding the Five-Year Review Summary Report and the proposed amendments to the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the course of the investigation, the AAFC disclosed portions of records initially withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the information that remained withheld under subsection 19(1) met the criteria of the exemption. The AAFC reasonably exercised its discretion to decide not to release the information.

Neither the institution nor the third party demonstrated that the information met the requirements for exemption pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complaint is well founded.

The Commissioner ordered the AAFC to disclose all information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), unless it qualifies for exemption pursuant to subsection 19(1) or is outside the scope of the request, as outlined in the report.

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not follow the order, in light of new information regarding the impacts releasing the information would have, and that it would be applying to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection 41(2) of the Act.