Decisions

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 13(1)(c) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 16(2) (security), paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records about the Laval River slope stabilization project, at kilometre 680. This allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The use of subsections 16(2) and 19(1) to withhold signatures when the name of the signing authority was indicated directly below was removed from the scope of the complaint.

The Information Commissioner concluded that the information withheld under subsection 19(1) met the criteria of the exemption.

DFO did not show that the information met all of the requirements of paragraph 13(1)(c), in particular the confidentiality requirement.

Neither DFO nor the third party showed that the information met all the requirements for the exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The Commissioner ordered DFO to release all information that was previously withheld pursuant to paragraphs 13(1)(c) and 20(1)(c), with the exception of the information withheld under subsection 19(1).

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for a copy of an agreement between the Musqueam Indian Band and the VFPA. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner was not satisfied that all of the information withheld under subsection 18(b) met the criteria for exemption. Further, the VFPA did not demonstrate that it considered all relevant factors and 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 Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose all of the information withheld pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(b), unless it is found to meet the criteria for exemption pursuant to paragraph 18(b). The Commissioner also ordered the VFPA to re-exercise discretion concerning the information found to meet the criteria for exemption pursuant to paragraph 18(b).

The VFPA gave notice that it would release the information that did not meet the criteria for exemption, in a manner that would not disclose the length of the agreement. The VFPA did not address the second part of the order.

The complaint is well founded.