Canadian Transportation Agency (Re), 2025 OIC 26
The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act related to Case No. 17-05835. The OIC investigated claims under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23. The Commissioner found that the CTA and Air Transat (a third party) failed to demonstrate that the requirements for exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) were met for certain information, particularly regarding the objective confidentiality and potential harm. The Commissioner also found that Air Transat failed to establish that section 23 (litigation privilege) applied to its information. While some information withheld by the CTA under section 23 was found to be privileged, the CTA failed to demonstrate a reasonable exercise of discretion for its non-disclosure. Similarly, for information under paragraph 21(1)(b), the CTA failed to show a reasonable exercise of discretion. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain information and a re-exercise of discretion for other parts.
- 1Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied to specific records
- 2Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
- 3Whether the information was objectively confidential
- 4Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party applied to specific records
- 5Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause material financial impact or harm competitive position
- 6Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party applied to specific records
- 7Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with negotiations
- 8Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied to Air Transat's information
- 9Whether Air Transat's information was prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation
- 10Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied to CTA's information
- 11Whether communications between CTA and CRTC lawyers maintained solicitor-client privilege
- 12Whether the CTA reasonably exercised discretion under s.23
- 13Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied to specific records
- 14Whether the CTA reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(b)
- s.20(1)(b) third-party info: Exemption not justified
- s.20(1)(c) third-party info: Exemption not justified
- s.20(1)(d) third-party info: Exemption not justified
- s.23 litigation privilege (third party): Exemption not justified
- s.23 litigation privilege (institution): Discretion not reasonably exercised
- s.21(1)(b) advice: Discretion not reasonably exercised
- Overall complaint: Well-founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered and re-exercise of discretion ordered
The Commissioner found that the institution and third party failed to meet the burden of proof for several exemptions, particularly regarding objective confidentiality, reasonable expectation of harm, and the dominant purpose of litigation. For other exemptions that were found to apply, the institution failed to demonstrate a reasonable exercise of discretion in deciding whether to disclose the information.
The Commissioner ordered the Canadian Transportation Agency to disclose information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and specific information under section 23, and to re-exercise its discretion for information withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23.
- 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.23 ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.20(5) ATIA
- s.21(2) 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