Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) had improperly withheld information under subsections 18(a) (government trade secrets or government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 19(1) (personal information) 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 documents regarding a named individual’s role on the Pfizer Lyme Disease Advisory Board and their research project on Lyme Disease. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither the institution nor the third party demonstrated that the information within the scope of the complaint met all of the requirements for exemption pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(b); in particular, the information is not financial, commercial, scientific or technical.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered that that the CIHR disclose the information at issue.

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

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had improperly withheld information 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. This was in response to an access request for fatality investigation reports completed by rail industry employers and submitted to ESDC. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner found that a significant amount of the withheld information met the requirements of subsection 19(1), as it was information about the victims, witnesses and other individuals involved, but found that certain information was not about identifiable individuals.

The Office of the Information Commissioner sought representations from four third parties. One of the third parties claimed the information was also exempt under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party). With respect to the third-party information, neither ESDC nor the third parties provided sufficient representations to support that all of the withheld third-party information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c).

The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC: disclose information that is not about identifiable individuals, determine to what extent the information is publicly available and re-exercise discretion under paragraph 19(2)(b), disclose information not meeting the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) and re-exercise discretion under subsection 20(5).

ESDC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act (the Act) in response to an access request for information related to an Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal decision related to the death of a Canadian National Railway (CN Rail) employee. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

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

ESDC showed that it met all the requirements of subsection 19(1) and section 23. However, ESDC did not demonstrate that it reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

The Information Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 23, taking into account all relevant factors for and against disclosure.

ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.