Archived [2008-11] – Investigator's Guide to Interpreting the Act
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived.
The Investigator’s Guide was removed from the website in April 2021 and is currently available solely for the above-mentioned activities.
We invite you to consult the Information Commissioner’s Guidance section where you will find up-to-date information on how we approach investigations and interpret the Access to Information Act.
In addition, the Information Commissioner posts final reports on her investigations on the website to provide guidance to both institutions and complainants. Using the database, you can sort through the decisions with the relevant sections of the Act.
Complaint: Canada Post withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) various details in contracts given to a consultant.
Investigation: During the investigation, Canada Post also applied paragraph 20(1)(c) to the information, claiming that releasing it could result in material financial loss for the consultant or prejudice his firm’s competitive position. For his part, the consultant was more concerned with possible damage to him in his personal capacity rather than possible damage to his business, which, as it turned out, had been dissolved.
Outcome: In response to a formal recommendation from the Information Commissioner, Canada Post disclosed the information in its entirety.
Information Commissioner’s position:
- When claiming paragraph 20(1)(c), institutions must demonstrate that disclosure would result in financial loss to a third party or would harm its competitive position.
- In addition, the information contained in the contract in this case was not “supplied” by a third party, as paragraph 20(1)(b) requires. Rather, the terms of the contract had been arrived at through negotiations.