Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5819-00985
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5819-00985 — Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Organization: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) improperly withheld information related to the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Public Accountability and Transparency Requirements under several sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, SSHRC claimed exemptions under s.16(2)(c), s.19(1), s.20(1)(c), s.20(1)(d), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). During the investigation, the s.16(2)(c) claim was removed from the scope, and SSHRC additionally relied on s.20(1)(b). The Commissioner found that SSHRC appropriately withheld information under s.19(1) (personal information) and parts of s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) (advice/recommendations and consultations/deliberations), as the requirements for these exemptions were met and discretion was reasonably exercised. However, SSHRC failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements for s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d) due to insufficient evidence of confidentiality, financial impact, or interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered SSHRC to disclose all redacted information except that falling under s.19(1), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). SSHRC agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.16(2)(c) facilitating the commission of an offence applied to the withheld information
  2. 2Whether s.19(1) personal information applied to the withheld information
  3. 3Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)
  4. 4Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied to the withheld information
  5. 5Whether s.20(1)(c) material financial impact on a third party applied to the withheld information
  6. 6Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party applied to the withheld information
  7. 7Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to the withheld information
  8. 8Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied to the withheld information
  9. 9Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld
  • s.21(1)(a) advice/recommendations: Exemption upheld in part
  • s.21(1)(b) consultations/deliberations: Exemption upheld in part
  • s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party information: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(c) financial impact: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(d) negotiations: Exemption not upheld
  • Disclosure of records: Partial disclosure ordered
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered in part

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that SSHRC properly applied s.19(1) and parts of s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) to certain information, and reasonably exercised its discretion for these exemptions. However, SSHRC failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding information under s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d). Information of a factual or objective nature was also found not to meet the requirements of s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b).

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

The President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is ordered to disclose all redacted information, except for that which meets the requirements of subsection 19(1) and/or paragraphs 21(1)(a) and/or 21(1)(b).

Statutes considered
  • s.16(2)(c) ATIA
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.19(2) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(d) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.36.3 ATIA
  • s.37(2) 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