Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(a) (government trade secrets, government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to the development and significant policy changes to the Canada Mortgage Bonds (CMB) program, as well as risk assessment for the CMB and the National Housing Act Mortgage-Backed Securities (NHA MBS) programs. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the complaint was reduced to remove instances where paragraph 20(1)(b) was applied to withhold certain third-party information.

During the investigation, CMHC invoked paragraph 68(a) to withhold some third-party information available for purchase. CMHC also disclosed some information it had withheld under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b). CMHC showed that it met all of the requirements of these exemptions where it maintained them.

The third parties whose information remained at issue did not provide any representations and CMHC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that CMHC disclose all information at issue withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

CMHC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 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 in response to an access request for communications with the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) regarding the Five-Year Review Summary Report and the proposed amendments to the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the course of the investigation, the AAFC disclosed portions of records initially withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the information that remained withheld under subsection 19(1) met the criteria of the exemption. The AAFC 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 complaint is well founded.

The Commissioner ordered the AAFC to disclose all information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), unless it qualifies for exemption pursuant to subsection 19(1) or is outside the scope of the request, as outlined in the report.

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not follow the order, in light of new information regarding the impacts releasing the information would have, and that it would be applying to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection 41(2) of the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) had improperly withheld information under 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 records relating to a virtual town hall meeting involving the SSHRC President and President of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador (MUN), as well as other meetings or contacts between SSHRC and MUN officials and representatives from December 11, 2020 to the date of the request. 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.

The Information Commissioner ordered that SSHRC release all of the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

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

The complaint is well founded.

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.