Decisions

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SCC) has wrongfully refused to process an access request made under the Access to Information Act for records related to informal official language complaints.

SSC refused to process the access request as it did not believe it met the requirements of section 6 of the Act.

SSC asserted that responding to the access request as worded would require tasking every employee of the department to search for records, more than 8,300 individuals. In addition, the administrative burden placed on SSC to respond to the request would unreasonably conflict with core activities.  

The Information Commissioner did not agree, and ordered the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada to accept the access request as meeting the requirements of section 6 and to proceed accordingly.

SSC did not respond to the Commissioner’s initial report. It is therefore unknown whether SSC will implement the Commissioner’s order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for information related to applications for funding from The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (Niagara-on-the-Lake) between January 2020 and April 2021. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither the institution nor the third parties to whom the information relates provided evidence or representations demonstrating that the requirements of the exemptions were met.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the FedDev Ontario to disclose all information at issue.

The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario gave notice that it would fully implement the order.

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, regarding Contract Number PWG560229 awarded on April 10, 2017 relating to Health Protection Building Demolition – Prime Consulting Services.

In response to the access request, PSPC indicated that it could not identify any relevant records, under its control. The investigation found that while the subcontracts and related records were not in PSPC’s physical possession, they were under its control for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the records should have been retrieved and processed in accordance with the Act.

The Information Commissioner recommended 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 recommendations.

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 for records related to job creation estimates and estimated jobs maintained figures for projects that received assistance during a specific time period between 2011 and 2018.

The scope of the complaint was narrowed to information related to eleven (11) third parties.

Only one of the third parties, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada (Toyota), provided representations in support of the exemption. However, neither Toyota nor ISED demonstrated that the information at issue met all of the requirements of the exemption.

The Information Commissioner recommended that ISED disclose all information at issue.

ISED gave notice that it would not fully implement the recommendation and maintains that some information related to Toyota would continue to be withheld pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complaint is well founded.