Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Trans Mountain Corporation (Re), 2023 OIC 01

Organization: Trans Mountain CorporationComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly responded to an access request by invoking subsection 10(2) of the Access to Information Act, neither confirming nor denying the existence of records, and stating that if records existed, they would be withheld under subsection 16(2). The OIC found that TMC failed to demonstrate that the existence or absence of records itself warranted withholding, especially since TMC had previously confirmed the existence of similar records in response to a nearly identical request. The Commissioner also determined that TMC did not show how all responsive records, if they existed, could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2). Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that TMC's reliance on subsection 10(2) was not justified. The complaint was found to be well founded, and TMC was ordered to provide a new response confirming or denying the existence of records and, if records exist, to provide access unless a specific exemption applies.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the institution met the requirements for invoking subsection 10(2) of the ATIA
  2. 2Whether the existence or absence of records itself is information that warrants being withheld under the Act
  3. 3Whether, if responsive records existed, they could reasonably be exempted under specific provisions of the Act
  4. 4Whether the institution's reliance on subsection 10(2) was a reasonable exercise of discretion
  5. 5Whether disclosure of records could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2)
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • Application of s. 10(2): Not justified
  • Application of s. 16(2): Not justified
  • Complaint outcome: Well founded
  • New response ordered: Confirm or deny existence of records
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

TMC failed to demonstrate that the existence or absence of records warranted withholding under subsection 10(2), particularly given prior confirmation of similar records. Furthermore, TMC did not establish that all potential responsive records would reasonably fall under the harm test of subsection 16(2).

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

The President and CEO of TMC is ordered to provide a new response to the complainant within 30 days, confirming or denying the existence of records responsive to the request, and if records exist, to provide access unless a specific provision of Part 1 of the Act applies.

Statutes considered
  • s.10(1) ATIA
  • s.10(2) ATIA
  • s.16(2) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.36.1(1) ATIA
  • s.37(4) 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