Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position or negotiations by government institutions) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act (the Act), in response to an access request for documents about the total remuneration of the 250 highest paid unionized employees of the CBC’s French services for two fiscal years.

The CBC relied on paragraph 18(b) to withhold about 25 of the top 250 exact individual salaries requested, for each fiscal year.

The investigation revealed that there is a reasonable expectation that disclosing the information withheld under paragraph 18(b) could injure the CBC’s competitive position. In addition, the Information Commissioner is unable to conclude that the CBC did not consider all the relevant factors to withhold the information. Consequently, the exercise of discretion by the CBC was reasonable.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had improperly withheld information in response to an access request for information related to contract 100004587 for a bilingual Advanced Access to Information and Privacy consultant. ESDC refused to disclose portions of the requested records based on subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations), section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege), and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act.

ESDC was unable to demonstrate that information in a CV, related to the position, function and responsibilities of a government employee/contractor, was properly exempt under subsection 19(1), that ESDC made reasonable efforts to seek consent to release personal information, that certain third-party information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) and that some information met the requirements of paragraph 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information that she found did not meet the requirements of the exemptions and to determine whether the circumstance described in paragraph 19(2)(a) exists.

ESDC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request related to all investments and transfer payments approved under the Program for Strategic Industrial Projects, Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative, and Strategic Innovation Fund, including the Repayments to Date figures.

The scope of the complaint was narrowed to information related to twelve (12) third parties.

Several third parties and ISED provided representations in support of the exemption. However, neither the third parties nor ISED demonstrated that the information at issue met all of the requirements of the exemption.

The Information Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all information at issue.

ISED gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Information Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access.  In particular, the Commissioner found that the request is part of a pattern of behaviour involving the requester’s repeated requests for substantively the same information. The Commissioner also noted that most of the information being sought has either been provided by the requester to the institution, or has already been provided to the requester by the institution. The Commissioner also found that the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to further consider whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is granted.