Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5819-00040
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5819-00040 — Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada

Organization: Housing, Infrastructure and Communities CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought payment documents from Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG) to Infrastructure Canada. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, no longer requiring investigation into GST/PST numbers, banking information, and information withheld under subsection 19(1). The Commissioner found that Infrastructure Canada and SSLG successfully demonstrated that information related to pricing and contractual relationships met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c). However, they failed to justify the withholding of other information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), or subsection 24(1). The Commissioner ordered Infrastructure Canada to disclose the remaining information, excluding that related to pricing and contractual relationships. Infrastructure Canada agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.19(1) personal information was properly withheld
  2. 2Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information was properly withheld
  3. 3Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was properly withheld
  4. 4Whether s.24(1) disclosure restricted by another law was properly withheld
  5. 5Whether disclosure of financial information provides insight into pricing and contractual relationships
  6. 6Whether disclosure of financial information would give SSLG’s competitors an advantage
  7. 7Whether the argument that disclosure could be seen negatively by project owners on future bids was speculative
  8. 8Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
  9. 9Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b)
  10. 10Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
  11. 11Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
  12. 12Whether the content of the record is not available from sources otherwise accessible to the public
  13. 13Whether the information originates and is communicated in a reasonable expectation of confidence
  14. 14Whether the information was communicated in a relationship between government and the third party that is either a fiduciary relationship or one that is not contrary to the public interest, and that will be fostered for the public benefit by confidential communication
  15. 15Whether the confidentiality clause in the Project Agreement is determinative for objective confidentiality
  16. 16Whether the information contained within the invoices was supplied by a third party to Infrastructure Canada
  17. 17Whether section 295 of the Excise Tax Act applies to the Procurement Business Number under s.24(1)
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.19 personal privacy: Issue withdrawn by complainant
  • s.20(1)(b) financial interests: Exemption not justified for some information
  • s.20(1)(c) financial interests: Exemption upheld for pricing/contractual info
  • s.20(1)(c) financial interests: Exemption not justified for other information
  • s.24(1) statutory prohibition: Exemption not justified
  • Disclosure of records: Partial disclosure ordered
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

The institution failed to justify the withholding of most of the requested information under the claimed exemptions, except for specific details related to pricing and contractual relationships which met the criteria for s.20(1)(c). The Commissioner found that the institution and third party did not adequately demonstrate objective confidentiality or that all information was supplied by the third party for other exemptions.

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

The Deputy Head of Infrastructure Canada is ordered to disclose the Procurement Business Number and all other information remaining within the scope of the complaint where the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were not met.

Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.24(1) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.35(2)(c) 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