Decisions

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to a specific contract. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

NRCan and the third party did not show that all of the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) were met for portions of the information.

The Information Commissioner recommended that NRCan disclose all information previously withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and (c), other than a void cheque and the unit prices and quantities. NRCan did not inform the Commissioner, as required by subsection 37(1), whether they would implement the recommendation. Instead, they disclosed additional information to the complainant and provided a copy to the Office of the Information Commissioner. Upon review, the Information Commissioner noted that the additional disclosure did not include all of the information subject to her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not conduct reasonable searches in response to access requests under the Access to Information Act for records relating to certain contracts. The complaints fall within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigations determined that National Defence had not attempted to retrieve records in the possession of the third party that National Defence was entitled to obtain under the contract. As a result of the investigations, National Defence contacted the contractor to request copies of the records and retrieved the documents.

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence process any additional records located, provide new responses to the complainant that either give access to any additional records or identify why the additional records are not responsive to the request.

National Defence gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders.

The complaints are well founded.

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraphs 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and 21(1)(c) (positions or plans developed for negotiations), and section 23 (litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project and communications, including internal records relating to such communications, regarding Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, that were exchanged between the institution and the Alberta Energy Regulator. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the processing of their request, the complainant had expressly indicated that they were not interested in information not related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The Commissioner was satisfied that based on the particular facts of this case, Parks Canada was justified in not processing records, or portions thereof, which the complainant had agreed should not be considered part of the response to their request.

During the course of the investigation, Parks Canada disclosed a portion of the record initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a). The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the information that remained withheld under subsection 19(1), paragraph 21(1)(a) and section 23 met the criteria of the exemptions.

The complaint is well-founded.