Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5822-00319
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5822-00319 — Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Organization: Impact Assessment Agency of CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

An anonymous applicant complained that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information related to its 2020-2021 inspection plan under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that IAAC failed to demonstrate the reasonable expectation of harm or that the conditions for exemption were met for information withheld under sections 14 (federal-provincial affairs), 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations), 16(2) (facilitating an offence), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on third party), and 24(1) (restricted by other law, specifically s.30(1) of the Impact Assessment Act). Claims under sections 20(1)(b) (third-party confidential information), 21(1)(a), (b), and (c) (advice, consultations, negotiations), and 23 (solicitor-client privilege) were partially upheld, with factual or general identifying information deemed disclosable. The Commissioner also determined that IAAC failed to consider its obligation to exercise discretion regarding disclosure under sections 20(6), 21, and 23. However, information withheld under section 21(1)(d) (personnel management plans) and section 68(a) (published material) was found to be properly exempted or excluded. Consequently, the complaint was well-founded, and IAAC was ordered to disclose the improperly withheld information and re-exercise its discretion for other parts.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the information met the requirements of s.13(1) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the information met the requirements of s.14 ATIA
  3. 3Whether the information met the requirements of s.16(1)(c) ATIA
  4. 4Whether the information met the requirements of s.16(2) ATIA
  5. 5Whether the information met the requirements of s.19(1) ATIA
  6. 6Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  7. 7Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (not publicly available)
  8. 8Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (reasonable expectation of non-disclosure)
  9. 9Whether the relationship was fostered for public benefit by confidential communication under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  10. 10Whether the information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  11. 11Whether the information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  12. 12Whether the disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to cause material financial impact or harm competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  13. 13Whether IAAC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(6) ATIA
  14. 14Whether the information constituted advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  15. 15Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  16. 16Whether the information constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  17. 17Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  18. 18Whether the information constituted positions or plans developed for negotiations under s.21(1)(c) ATIA
  19. 19Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from positions or plans developed for negotiations under s.21(1)(c) ATIA
  20. 20Whether the information constituted plans related to personnel management or administration not yet in operation under s.21(1)(d) ATIA
  21. 21Whether the information was subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
  22. 22Whether IAAC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21 ATIA and s.23 ATIA
  23. 23Whether the disclosure of information was restricted by s.30(1) of the Impact Assessment Act, thereby falling under s.24(1) ATIA
  24. 24Whether the information was published or available for purchase under s.68(a) ATIA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.14 federal-provincial affairs: Exemption not upheld
  • s.16(1)(c) investigations: Exemption not upheld
  • s.16(2) facilitating an offence: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(c) financial impact: Exemption not upheld
  • s.24(1) restricted by other law: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(b) third-party confidential: Exemption partially upheld
  • s.21(1)(a),(b),(c) advice/consultations: Exemption partially upheld
  • s.23 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption partially upheld
  • Duty to exercise discretion: Institution failed to exercise discretion
  • s.21(1)(d) personnel management: Exemption upheld
  • s.68(a) published material: Exclusion upheld
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada failed to demonstrate that the requirements of several claimed exemptions were met for much of the withheld information, and also failed to show that it had properly exercised its discretion to disclose information where required.

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

The Information Commissioner ordered the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to disclose specific information that was improperly withheld under sections 14, 16(1)(c), 16(2), 20(1)(b) (in part), 20(1)(c), 21(1)(a) (in part), 21(1)(b) (in part), 21(1)(c) (in part), 23 (in part), and 24(1), and to re-exercise its discretion under sections 20(6), 21, and 23 for other information.

Statutes considered
  • s.13(1) ATIA
  • s.14 ATIA
  • s.16(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.16(2) ATIA
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.20(2) ATIA
  • s.20(4) ATIA
  • s.20(5) ATIA
  • s.20(6) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(d) ATIA
  • s.21(2) ATIA
  • s.23 ATIA
  • s.24(1) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.35(2)(c) ATIA
  • s.36.3 ATIA
  • s.37(2) ATIA
  • s.43 ATIA
  • s.68(a) ATIA
  • s.30(1) Impact Assessment Act

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