Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)3218-01365
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

3218-01365 — Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Organization: Fisheries and Oceans CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, the Creative Salmon Company Ltd., or jaundice syndrome, claiming exemptions under paragraphs 18(c), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DFO failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish their findings first, as required by paragraph 18(c). Furthermore, neither DFO nor the third party, Creative Salmon Ltd., established that the information was confidential, supplied by the third party, or consistently treated as confidential, as required by paragraph 20(1)(b). The OIC also concluded that DFO and Creative Salmon Ltd. did not show a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or harm to competitive position from disclosure, as claimed under paragraph 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the information, with the exception of personal information. DFO agreed to implement the recommendations, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the information was scientific or technical
  2. 2Whether the information was obtained through research by a government employee or officer
  3. 3Whether disclosing the information could threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish the results of their research first
  4. 4Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.18(c)
  5. 5Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(c)
  6. 6Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
  7. 7Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b)
  8. 8Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
  9. 9Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
  10. 10Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(b)
  11. 11Whether disclosing the information could result in substantial financial loss or gain to the third party under s.20(1)(c)
  12. 12Whether there is a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or gain under s.20(1)(c)
  13. 13Whether disclosing the information could injure the competitive position of the third party under s.20(1)(c)
  14. 14Whether there is a reasonable expectation of injury to competitive position under s.20(1)(c)
  15. 15Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(c)
  16. 16Whether DFO should have considered disclosure under subsection 20(6) for public health, safety, or environmental protection reasons
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • s.18(c) research information: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(b) confidential info: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(c) financial harm: Exemption not upheld
  • Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed (except personal info)
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

DFO failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements for exemption under paragraphs 18(c), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. Specifically, DFO could not establish a continued intention to publish for s.18(c), nor could it prove confidentiality, third-party supply, or consistent confidential treatment for s.20(1)(b). For s.20(1)(c), DFO and the third party did not show a reasonable expectation of substantial financial harm or injury to competitive position from disclosure.

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

The Information Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans disclose the information at issue in full, with the exception of personal information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Statutes considered
  • s.18(c) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.20(6) 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