
5822-04499 — Indigenous Services Canada
The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) improperly withheld information related to a 2000 settlement agreement between the Crown and the Squamish Nation, including maps and appendices, under paragraphs 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The OIC investigated, seeking representations from both ISC and the Squamish Nation. Neither party provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of specific information and a reasonable expectation of harm under the claimed exemptions. The Commissioner found that much of the information was already in the public domain and that the arguments for financial impact, interference with negotiations, or the application of solicitor-client/litigation privilege were speculative or unfounded. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISC to disclose the records in their entirety. ISC, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order, citing potential negative impacts on its relationship with the Squamish Nation and other Indigenous Peoples.
- 1Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was reasonably expected
- 2Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with third-party negotiations was reasonably expected
- 3Whether s.23 solicitor-client privilege applied to the settlement agreement
- 4Whether s.23 litigation privilege applied to the settlement agreement
- 5Whether the information was already in the public domain
- s.20(1)(c) financial harm: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(d) negotiations harm: Exemption not upheld
- s.23 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
- Compliance with order: Institution refused to comply
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution will not comply
The Commissioner found that neither Indigenous Services Canada nor the third party (Squamish Nation) provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would reasonably be expected to cause the harms described in the claimed exemptions. Arguments for financial impact, interference with negotiations, and the application of solicitor-client or litigation privilege were deemed speculative or inapplicable, especially given the public availability of much of the information.
The Minister of Indigenous Services was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.20(1)(d) ATIA
- s.23 ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35 ATIA
- s.36.3(1) ATIA
- s.37(2) ATIA
- s.43 ATIA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
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