
3218-01365 — Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, and the Creative Salmon Company Ltd. under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that DFO failed to meet the requirements for exemptions related to confidential third-party financial/commercial/scientific/technical information (s. 20(1)(b) and (c)) and government scientific or technical information obtained from research (s. 18(c)). DFO could not demonstrate that the information was confidential, supplied by the third party, or that its disclosure would reasonably harm the third party's financial or competitive position. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the information, with the exception of personal information, and DFO agreed to implement these recommendations.
- Whether information was confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information (s. 20(1)(b))
- Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to result in substantial financial loss or gain to a third party or be injurious to its competitive position (s. 20(1)(c))
- Whether disclosure of government scientific or technical information obtained from research could reasonably be expected to threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish their findings first (s. 18(c))
- Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information under s. 20(6) for public health, safety, or environmental protection reasons.
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Commissioner found that DFO did not meet the necessary criteria to exempt the records under paragraphs 18(c), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. Specifically, DFO failed to demonstrate the confidentiality of the information, that it was supplied by the third party, or that its disclosure would cause substantial financial harm or injure the third party's competitive position. The Commissioner also noted that DFO's claim under paragraph 18(c) was unsupported, as there was no reasonable expectation that disclosing the information would threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish first.
AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
DFO was recommended to disclose the information at issue in full, with the exception of personal information withheld under subsection 19(1).
- s. 20(1)(b) ATIA
- s. 20(1)(c) ATIA
- s. 18(c) ATIA
- s. 19(1) ATIA
- s. 20(6) ATIA
This decision is informational only and does not constitute legal advice.

