Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement, conduct of investigations), 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. The request was for a copy of the Final Report of the Investigation and analysis of the accidental death of a named individual who died at a Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) railway yard. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for certain information. Although CP asserted that additional exemptions under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) apply to the information related to CP, the third party did not met its burden of showing that the requirements of these exemptions were met.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information in response to an access request under numerous provisions of the Access to Information Act. The request was for applications for legal funding at public expense and included information related to British Columbia’s (B.C.) Braidwood Commission on the death of Robert Dziekanski. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner concluded that some information did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (c) (confidential information from government bodies), section 14 (federal-provincial affairs), subsection 15(1) (international affairs) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the RCMP to disclose it. Of note with regard to section 23 is that the RCMP was also unable to show that letters from legal counsel to the Braidwood Commission were privileged information in any regard, including common interest privilege, raised by the RCMP.

In addition, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP had not taken reasonable steps to seek the consent of the B.C. government to disclose the information that qualified for exemption under subsection 13(1), as is required by subsection 13(2). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to take these steps and then, if it received consent, to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be fully implementing her orders.

The complaint is well founded.