Decisions

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to Tetra Tech, including peer reviewer comments. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. Health Canada could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions - in particular, that the information was not publicly available, that it was objectively confidential, or that all of the information was provided by the third party, or that there was a real risk of competitive harm to the third party by the release of the information.  Health Canada did reasonably exercise its discretion to decide not to disclose information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(b). The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

Health Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records pertaining to engagement with proponents of the Ksi Lisims LNG project and the proponents’ engagement with Indigenous communities relating to the project.

The complainant decided to limit the scope of the complaint to the information withheld on pages 51-74 of the records, and decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate information withheld under subsection 19(1). As information on page 57 was withheld under both subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b), the OIC included this page in the scope of its investigation.

The IAAC could not show that the information on pages 62, 63, 65 and 73 met all the requirements of the exemptions.

The IAAC showed that the information on page 57 met all the requirements of subsection 19(1). The circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist and there was no need for the IAAC to exercise its discretion.

The IAAC showed that the information on page 67 met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).  The IAAC did not consider all relevant factors and did not reasonably exercise its discretion to decide not to release the information on page 67.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the IAAC disclose the information withheld on pages 62, 63, 65 and 73 of the records.

The Commissioner also ordered the IAAC to determine, on page 67, whether the circumstances described in subsection 20(6) exist and reasonably exercise discretion to decide whether to release the information.

The IAAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders.

The complaint is well-founded.