The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly responded to an access request by claiming subsection 10(2) of the Access to Information Act and indicating that, if records existed, they would be withheld under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. TMC could not show that it met the requirements for invoking subsection 10(2), nor that responsive records, if they existed, would fall under subsection 16(2) of the Act. More particularly, the OIC’s investigation revealed that the existence of some records responsive to part of the request had already been confirmed by TMC through a previous response to a nearly identical request. Therefore, TMC could not show that the existence or absence of records itself is information that warrants being withheld under the Act. The Information Commissioner ordered the President and CEO of TMC to provide a new response to the complainant confirming or denying the existence of records responsive to the request within 30 days of the coming into effect of the order and, if responsive records exist, to provide access to them unless access to information contained therein, or a part thereof, may/must be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act. TMC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order but only by May 31, 2023. The complaint is well founded.