Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5823-03707
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-03707 — Canada Post

Organization: Canada PostComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 18.1(1), and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a health and safety strategy report and related invoicing from DuPont Sustainable (DSS). The OIC found that Canada Post failed to demonstrate that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) met the requirements for confidentiality, third-party supply, or consistent confidential treatment. Similarly, for subsection 18.1(1), Canada Post did not show that the information constituted a trade secret or confidential financial/commercial information belonging to it, or that it was consistently treated as confidential. However, the OIC upheld the application of subsection 19(1) for personal contact information. The Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and subsection 18.1(1). Canada Post agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to contact details
  2. 2Whether the information was about an individual
  3. 3Whether there was a serious possibility of identification
  4. 4Whether the information fell under exceptions to 'personal information' in the Privacy Act
  5. 5Whether s.19(2) ATIA circumstances (consent, public availability, consistency with Privacy Act s.8) existed
  6. 6Whether Canada Post reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA
  7. 7Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to invoice details
  8. 8Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
  9. 9Whether the information was objectively confidential (not publicly available)
  10. 10Whether the information was objectively confidential (reasonable expectation of confidence)
  11. 11Whether the information was objectively confidential (relationship fostered for public benefit)
  12. 12Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
  13. 13Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
  14. 14Whether s.18.1(1) ATIA (trade secrets or confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post) was properly applied to invoice and presentation content
  15. 15Whether the information constituted a 'trade secret'
  16. 16Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to Canada Post
  17. 17Whether Canada Post consistently treated the information as confidential
  18. 18Whether s.18.1(2) ATIA (general administration exclusion) applied
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.20(1)(b) third-party info: Exemption not upheld; disclosure ordered
  • s.18.1(1) economic interests: Exemption not upheld; disclosure ordered
  • s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld
  • Compliance with order: Institution agreed to implement order
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

Canada Post failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met all the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) and subsection 18.1(1) of the Act. Specifically, it could not prove objective confidentiality, that the information was supplied by a third party, or that it was consistently treated as confidential for 20(1)(b). For 18.1(1), it did not show the information was a trade secret or confidential information belonging to Canada Post that was consistently treated as such. However, the personal contact information was found to be properly withheld under subsection 19(1).

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

The Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and subsection 18.1(1).

Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.18.1(1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.35(2)(c) ATIA
  • s.36.3(1) ATIA
  • s.19(2) ATIA
  • s.3 Privacy Act
  • s.8 Privacy Act
  • s.20(5) ATIA
  • s.20(6) ATIA
  • s.20(2) ATIA
  • s.20(4) ATIA
  • s.18.1(2) 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