Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld under 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 portions of the Hazardous Occurrence Investigation Report, dated August 25, 2016, into the death of a Canadian National Railway (CN) employee. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Certain information did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), including train numbers, track numbers, locations and information found within witness statements where disclosure would not create a serious possibility of identification of the witnesses.

The institution and the third party did not demonstrate that any of the information met all four requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose specific information withheld under subsection 19(1), consider whether its discretion was triggered under paragraph 19(2)(c) and if so excersize its discretion reasonably and disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) where such information does not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1).

Transport Canada gave notice that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

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.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on two access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act (the Act). The institution argued that the access requests were made in bad faith and were an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further submitted that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

The Commissioner found that the institution did not show that it had fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act on the requests. As a result, it is not necessary to determine whether the access requests were made in bad faith or were an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is denied.