Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendation) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information related to the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Public Accountability and Transparency Requirements. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of paragraph 16(2)(c) was removed from the scope of the complaint.

During the investigation, SSHRC decided to also rely on paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) to withhold some information.

SSHRC showed that the information withheld under subsection 19(1) met all the requirements of the exemption.

SSHRC could not show that other information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d).

Information of a factual or objective nature also did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered SSHRC to disclose all the redacted information, except information that meets the requirements of subsection 19(1) and/or paragraphs 21(1)(a) and/or 21(1)(b).

SSHRC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request was an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access request.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on five access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the requests are vexatious and an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that two of the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request, namely, A-2023-00305 and A-2023-00314. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on these two access requests.

That said, the institution neither established that the remaining access requests (A-2023-00303, A-2023-00308 and A-2023-00310) are vexatious, nor that they are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is partially granted.