The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests or Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information related to the requests for proposals (RFP) by invitation DDPI-510-22-1543 and DDPI-510-22-1545. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The OPMC did not show that the information met all of the requirements of paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1). More specifically, the alleged harm is speculative in nature, and the names that were redacted under subsection 19(1) belonged to employees who received a document as part of their duties, and are subject to the exception at paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety. The OPMC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.