Decisions

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.

The Information Commissioner of Canada gives notice under subsection 30(5) of the Access to Information Act that she has ceased to investigate complaint 5819-02602, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(a). This paragraph allows the Commissioner to cease to investigate a complaint when, in her opinion, a complaint is trivial, frivolous or vexatious, or is made in bad faith.

The complainant indicated that they wanted to pursue the matter as a point of principle although the matter for which the information was sought has already been settled. The complainant’s seeming lack of interest in obtaining access to the records and their request to continue to investigate, solely on a matter of principle, makes the complaint trivial.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law), paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations.

In the present instance, the schedule II provision claimed by CRA is section 241 of the Income Tax Act. Section 241 contains a general prohibition of the disclosure of taxpayer information, subject to certain limited exceptions.

The Office of the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the information at issue is about identifiable taxpayers that was prepared from information obtained by CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and the Commissioner concluded that the information was properly withheld pursuant to subsection 24(1).

Since paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 19(1) of the Act were applied concurrently to the same information that was exempted pursuant to subsection 24(1), it was not necessary to determine whether refusal to disclose the same information could also be justified under paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 19(1).

The complaint is not well founded.