Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5819-03380
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5819-03380 — Trans Mountain Corporation

Organization: Trans Mountain CorporationComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 26 of the Access to Information Act, concerning documents related to specific Board of Directors meetings in 2019 for the Trans Mountain Project. During the investigation, TMC expanded its claims to include twelve additional exemptions, but failed to provide sufficient details or justification for any of the claimed exemptions or to properly consider severability. The Commissioner found that TMC had not applied the Act correctly and that further disclosure was warranted. Consequently, the Commissioner issued an initial report with an intended order for TMC to disclose all withheld information. TMC subsequently released portions of the records, which satisfied the complainant, making a formal order unnecessary.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) applied to the withheld information
  2. 2Whether s.21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) applied to the withheld information
  3. 3Whether s.26 (information to be published) applied to the withheld information
  4. 4Whether s.13(1)(c) (confidential information from government bodies) applied to the withheld information
  5. 5Whether s.17 (safety of individuals) applied to the withheld information
  6. 6Whether s.18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the withheld information
  7. 7Whether s.18(b) (competitive position of government institutions) applied to the withheld information
  8. 8Whether s.20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets) applied to the withheld information
  9. 9Whether s.20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the withheld information
  10. 10Whether s.20(1)(b.1) (third-party emergency management plans) applied to the withheld information
  11. 11Whether s.20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) applied to the withheld information
  12. 12Whether s.20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) applied to the withheld information
  13. 13Whether s.22 (testing or auditing procedures or techniques) applied to the withheld information
  14. 14Whether s.22.1(1) (draft internal audit reports and their working papers) applied to the withheld information
  15. 15Whether s.23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) applied to the withheld information
  16. 16Whether Trans Mountain Corporation met its burden of justifying the refusal to disclose information
  17. 17Whether Trans Mountain Corporation properly considered severability under s.25 of the Act
  18. 18Whether Trans Mountain Corporation's late introduction of additional exemptions and arguments was appropriate
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • s.21(1)(a) advice: Exemption not justified
  • s.21(1)(b) advice: Exemption not justified
  • s.26 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption not justified
  • Additional exemptions: Exemptions not justified
  • Severability: Not properly considered
  • Disclosure of records: Records released
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure achieved without formal order

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that Trans Mountain Corporation failed to provide sufficient justification for any of the numerous exemptions claimed and did not properly apply the severability provisions of the Act. Despite ample opportunity, TMC did not adequately explain how the withheld information met the requirements of the exemptions. This led to an initial order for disclosure, which TMC partially implemented, satisfying the complainant.

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

The Commissioner issued an initial report with an intended order for Trans Mountain Corporation to disclose all withheld information, which led to a partial release that satisfied the complainant.

Statutes considered
  • s.2(1) ATIA
  • s.4(2.1) ATIA
  • s.10(1) ATIA
  • s.13(1) ATIA
  • s.13(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.13(2) ATIA
  • s.17 ATIA
  • s.18(a) ATIA
  • s.18(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b.1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(d) ATIA
  • s.20(2) ATIA
  • s.20(4) ATIA
  • s.20(5) ATIA
  • s.20(6) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.21(2) ATIA
  • s.22 ATIA
  • s.22.1(1) ATIA
  • s.22.1(2) ATIA
  • s.23 ATIA
  • s.25 ATIA
  • s.26 ATIA
  • s.27(1) ATIA
  • s.33 ATIA
  • s.34 ATIA
  • s.35(2)(b) ATIA
  • s.37(1) ATIA
  • s.37(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.41 ATIA
  • s.43 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