Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)3217-00276
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

3217-00276 — Environment and Climate Change Canada

Organization: Environment and Climate Change CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information under several sections of the Access to Information Act related to a Request for Proposals (RFP). The OIC found that ECCC failed to properly exercise its discretion under subsection 19(2) regarding publicly available personal information and did not seek consent from individuals where appropriate. While ECCC's application of paragraph 21(1)(a) for evaluators' comments was upheld due to the specialized field and small number of competitors, the Commissioner found that certain financial and commercial information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) did not meet the exemption criteria, particularly where information was publicly available or absolute confidentiality was unreasonable for public funds. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC agreed to implement the Commissioner's recommendations to disclose the identified information.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
  2. 2Whether ECCC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2) for publicly available personal information
  3. 3Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations exemption was properly applied to evaluators' comments
  4. 4Whether ECCC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(a)
  5. 5Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations exemption was properly applied
  6. 6Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to evaluators' comments
  7. 7Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to the lowest bid amount and per diem rate
  8. 8Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to the Response to the RFP
  9. 9Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied to the lowest bid amount and per diem rate
  10. 10Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied to the Response to the RFP
  11. 11Whether the information met the confidentiality criteria under s.20(1)(b)
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.19 personal information: Improper discretion exercise; consent not sought
  • s.21(1)(a) advice: Exemption upheld for evaluators' comments
  • s.20(1)(b) financial information: Exemption not met; disclosure ordered
  • s.20(1)(c) commercial information: Exemption not met; disclosure ordered
  • Complaint outcome: Well founded; recommendations accepted
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

ECCC failed to properly exercise its discretion under subsection 19(2) for publicly available personal information and did not demonstrate that all information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) met the exemption criteria, especially for publicly available information or where confidentiality was not reasonably expected for public funds. ECCC's application of paragraph 21(1)(a) was upheld.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

The Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change was recommended to exercise discretion under subsection 19(2) to disclose publicly available personal information, disclose the per diem rate and lowest bid amount, and disclose parts of the Response to the RFP as outlined in ECCC's proposed release package.

Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.19(2) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA

This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable

Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.

Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).

Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.

Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.

Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.

Upgrade to Pro