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 subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records pertaining to the engagement of Canadian universities in the Federal Contractors Program. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Business numbers, the only information withheld under subsection 24(1), were removed from the scope of the complaint.

The institution did not demonstrate that all information it withheld under subsection 19(1) was personal information about identifiable individuals, or that it appropriately exercised its discretion under paragraph 19(2)(b).

The institution and third party did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were met where ESDC withheld a completed Employment Equity Achievement Awards Application Form.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Employment and Social Development to disclose all information at issue.

ESDC gave notice that it would fully implement the order.

The complainant alleged that Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 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 an Aviation Occurrence Reporting Form and photographs related to an incident involving an Air Inuit aircraft.  The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of subsection 19(1) was removed from the scope of the complaint.

TSB could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions.  Concerning paragraphs 20(1)(b), neither TSB nor the third party to whom the information relates, provided evidence or representation demonstrating that the information was confidential commercial information. No representations were provided to support the application of paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d).

The Information Commissioner ordered TSB to disclose all information at issue. TSB gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly responded to an access request by claiming subsection 10(2) of the Access to Information Act and indicating that, if records existed, they would be withheld under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. TMC could not show that it met the requirements for invoking subsection 10(2), nor that responsive records, if they existed, would fall under subsection 16(2) of the Act. More particularly, the OIC’s investigation revealed that the existence of some records responsive to part of the request had already been confirmed by TMC through a previous response to a nearly identical request. Therefore, TMC could not show that the existence or absence of records itself is information that warrants being withheld under the Act. The Information Commissioner ordered the President and CEO of TMC to provide a new response to the complainant confirming or denying the existence of records responsive to the request within 30 days of the coming into effect of the order and, if responsive records exist, to provide access to them unless access to information contained therein, or a part thereof, may/must be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act. TMC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order but only by May 31, 2023. The complaint is well founded.