Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Parks Canada (Re), 2023 OIC 26

Organization: Parks CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for records related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The institution withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraphs 21(1)(a), (b), (c) (advice, consultations, plans), and section 23 (litigation privilege). During the investigation, Parks Canada disclosed a portion of the record initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) due to the passage of time. The Commissioner found that the remaining information withheld under subsection 19(1), paragraph 21(1)(a), and section 23 met the criteria for exemption and that the institution had reasonably exercised its discretion. The Commissioner also addressed the complainant's concern about records marked as "not relevant," finding that Parks Canada was justified in not processing these records given the complainant's prior agreement to narrow the scope of the request. Despite upholding the institution's application of most exemptions, the complaint was found to be well-founded because the institution initially improperly withheld information under paragraph 21(1)(a) that was later released.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
  2. 2Whether discretion under s.19(2) was reasonably exercised
  3. 3Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations exemption was properly applied
  4. 4Whether discretion under s.21(1)(a) was reasonably exercised
  5. 5Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations exemption was properly applied
  6. 6Whether s.21(1)(c) positions or plans developed for negotiations exemption was properly applied
  7. 7Whether s.23 litigation privilege exemption was properly applied
  8. 8Whether discretion under s.23 was reasonably exercised
  9. 9Whether Parks Canada was justified in not processing records deemed 'not relevant' based on complainant's prior agreement
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld
  • s.21(1)(a) advice: Exemption upheld in part, disclosure ordered in part
  • s.21(1)(b) consultations: Exemption upheld
  • s.21(1)(c) plans: Exemption upheld
  • s.23 litigation privilege: Exemption upheld
  • Scope of search: Exclusion of 'not relevant' records justified
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded
Outcome

Complaint well-founded

Reasoning

The complaint was found to be well-founded because Parks Canada initially improperly withheld information under paragraph 21(1)(a) that the Commissioner determined did not meet the exemption criteria, even though it was subsequently released during the investigation. The Commissioner upheld the institution's application of other exemptions and its decision not to process 'not relevant' records.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.23 ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) 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