Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has failed to provide records in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act, for the Health Protection Building Whole Building (Tunney’s Pasture) Designated Substances Report. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

In response to the access request, PSPC provided some of the contract documents listed in the access request. However, it did not provide the records which it stated are not under its control. The investigation found that although the records at issue were not in PSPC’s physical possession, they were under its control for the purposes of the Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the records be retrieved and that a response be provided to the complainant.

PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not implement the orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on 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 records relating to, but not limited to, the role and activities of NRCan and/or Canadian Forest Service representatives on the Board of Governors of the Maritime College of Forest Technology (MCFT). The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

A portion of the records had also been withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1) and section 23, but these exemptions were not at issue.

During the investigation, MCFT decided to no longer oppose disclosure of two pieces of information that were publicly available.

For the remaining information, NRCan and the third party could not show that all of the requirements of these exemptions were met, in particular, that the information met the criteria for confidentiality, and that there was a reasonable expectation of harm in releasing it.

The Information Commissioner ordered that NRCan disclose any information that was not withheld under subsection 19(1) or section 23.

NRCan gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to a grant made to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in March 2020. This complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

No representations were provided by either the OECD or ACOA in support of the application of either exemption to the information at issue.

The Information Commissioner ordered ACOA to disclose the records in their entirety. ACOA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.