Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5822-03263
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5822-03263 — Trans Mountain Corporation

Organization: Trans Mountain CorporationComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld records related to the initial application and approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline in the early 1950s. TMC initially claimed numerous exemptions under the Access to Information Act, including sections 16(2), 17, 18(a), (b), (d), 19(1), and 20(1)(a), (b), (c), (d). During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, excluding technical information and information withheld under section 19(1). The Commissioner found that TMC failed to identify specific information withheld or establish how any of the remaining claimed exemptions applied, particularly noting that the 70-year-old records did not meet the criteria for section 17 (safety of individuals). TMC also failed to justify its refusal to provide a copy of the records under subsection 8(1) of the Regulations, as it did not demonstrate that reproduction would unreasonably interfere with operations or that the records' form prevented reproduction. The Commissioner ordered TMC to disclose all the information and provide a copy to the complainant. TMC agreed to implement the order.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.18(a) ATIA (government trade secrets, financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied
  2. 2Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) applied
  3. 3Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage the economy, undue benefit) applied
  4. 4Whether s.20(1)(a) ATIA (third-party trade secrets) applied
  5. 5Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied
  6. 6Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third-party) applied
  7. 7Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third-party) applied
  8. 8Whether s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) applied
  9. 9Whether s.17 ATIA (safety of individuals) applied
  10. 10Whether TMC established that disclosure could threaten the safety of an individual under s.17 ATIA
  11. 11Whether TMC established that the records were so lengthy that reproduction would unreasonably interfere with operations under s.8(1)(a) of the Regulations
  12. 12Whether TMC established that the records were in a form that does not readily lend itself to reproduction under s.8(1)(b) of the Regulations
  13. 13Whether TMC was justified in refusing to provide a copy of the records rather than an opportunity to examine them
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • Application of s.16(2) exemption: Exemption not justified
  • Application of s.17 exemption: Exemption not justified
  • Application of s.18(a),(b),(d) exemptions: Exemptions not justified
  • Application of s.20(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) exemptions: Exemptions not justified
  • Refusal to provide copy (Regs. 8(1)): Refusal not justified
  • Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

TMC failed to demonstrate that any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records, particularly for 70-year-old documents, and did not justify its refusal to provide a copy of the records under the Access to Information Regulations.

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

The President and CEO of TMC is ordered to disclose all the Information at Issue to the complainant and provide a copy by September 1, 2025.

Statutes considered
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.12(1) ATIA
  • s.25 ATIA
  • s.8(1) of the Regulations

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