Decisions

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.

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 Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (national security, defence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request regarding submarine operations in the Arctic region. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. LAC could not show that it met all the requirements of subsection 13(1) and subsection 15(1), in particular, how the information in the record was obtain in confidence and how further disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm national security and/or the defence of Canada. The Information Commissioner recommended that LAC disclose the records in their entirety. LAC gave notice to the Information Commissioner that it would not be implementing the recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.