5821-01140 — Health Canada
The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for records related to Tetra Tech, including peer reviewer comments. The OIC found that Health Canada failed to demonstrate that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) was objectively confidential or entirely supplied by the third party, as some information was publicly available or originated from Health Canada itself. Regarding paragraph 20(1)(c), the OIC concluded that neither Health Canada nor Tetra Tech demonstrated a reasonable expectation of competitive harm from disclosure. However, the OIC upheld the application of paragraph 21(1)(b) for certain internal consultations and found Health Canada's exercise of discretion to be reasonable for this exemption. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). Health Canada agreed to implement the order.
- 1Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
- 2Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was objectively confidential
- 3Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was supplied by a third party to a government institution
- 4Whether the third party consistently treated the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) as confidential
- 5Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party under s.20(1)(c)
- 6Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to injure the competitive position of a third party under s.20(1)(c)
- 7Whether the information withheld under s.21(1)(b) constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations
- 8Whether Health Canada reasonably exercised its discretion not to disclose information under s.21(1)(b)
- s.20(1)(b) third-party info: Exemption not upheld; disclosure ordered
- s.20(1)(c) financial harm: Exemption not upheld; disclosure ordered
- s.21(1)(b) internal consultations: Exemption upheld
- Compliance with order: Institution agreed to implement order
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered for s.20(1)(b) information
Health Canada failed to meet the requirements for applying s.20(1)(b) and s.20(1)(c) as it could not demonstrate objective confidentiality, that all information was supplied by the third party, or a reasonable expectation of harm. However, s.21(1)(b) was properly applied and discretion was reasonably exercised.
The Minister of Health is ordered to disclose specific information previously withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), including reviewer designations and various pages of records.
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.21(1)(b) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) 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