5819-02883 — Environment and Climate Change Canada
The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information under several exemptions of the Access to Information Act related to Taseko Mines Limited’s New Prosperity Project. The OIC investigated claims under subsections 16(2), 19(1), paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, removing all information withheld under subsection 16(2) from the complaint. The Commissioner found that ECCC did not demonstrate that the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), or section 23 were met for certain information. However, where the requirements for discretionary exemptions were met, ECCC was found to have reasonably exercised its discretion. The Commissioner ordered ECCC to disclose specific information that did not meet the exemption requirements. ECCC agreed to comply with the order, and the complaint was deemed well founded.
- 1Whether s.16(2) facilitating the commission of an offence applied
- 2Whether s.19(1) personal information applied
- 3Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2)
- 4Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party applied
- 5Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(5)
- 6Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(6)
- 7Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied
- 8Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(a)
- 9Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied
- 10Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(b)
- 11Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied
- 12Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.23
- s.20(1)(d) third-party info: Exemption not justified for certain information
- s.21(1)(a) advice: Exemption not justified for certain information
- s.21(1)(b) advice: Exemption not justified for certain information
- s.23 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption not justified for certain information
- Discretionary exemptions: Discretion reasonably exercised where exemptions met
- Disclosure of records: Specific information ordered disclosed
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Commissioner found that ECCC failed to demonstrate that the requirements for certain exemptions (20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and parts of 23) were met for specific information. While ECCC's exercise of discretion was found reasonable where exemptions did apply, the institution could not justify withholding all the information under the claimed provisions.
The Minister of Environment is ordered to disclose information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d), information withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) that is public, appears in final versions, or is factual and severable, and information withheld under section 23 that is not an exchange of legal advice between ECCC and its lawyers, unless it meets the requirements of another exemption.
- s.16(2) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.20(1)(d) ATIA
- s.21(1)(a) ATIA
- s.21(1)(b) ATIA
- s.23 ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) 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