
5824-01345 — Health Canada and Canadian Automobile Association and Canadian Institute of Planners
The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act concerning documents about the impact of campfires on air quality. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1). Health Canada had withheld names of third parties and short texts about them under paragraph 20(1)(c), claiming potential financial impact on third parties. The third parties, Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) and Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), were invited to make representations. The CAA opposed disclosure, citing "future risk" from misinformation, but provided no evidence of specific harm. The CIP stated disclosure would not cause it harm. The Commissioner found that the information did not meet the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) as there was no clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm beyond mere possibility. Health Canada agreed to disclose the information following an order from the Commissioner. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Health Canada was ordered to disclose the information.
- 1Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
- 2Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied
- 3Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party with a reasonable expectation of harm
- 4Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party with a reasonable expectation of prejudice
- 5Whether the third parties provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(c)
- s.19(1) personal information: Allegation withdrawn by complainant
- s.20(1)(c) third-party information: Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
- Complaint outcome: Well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Commissioner found that the third parties and Health Canada failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of material financial impact or harm to competitive position as required by paragraph 20(1)(c). The third party's claims of "misinformation" and "future risk" were not supported by evidence of specific harm, and the Commissioner noted that mere possibility or speculation is insufficient to meet the exemption's requirements.
The Minister of Health was ordered to disclose all information within the scope of the complaint that had been withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c).
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) ATIA
- s.36.3(1) ATIA
- s.20(5) ATIA
- s.20(6) ATIA
- s.20(2) ATIA
- s.20(4) 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