Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-00326 — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada

Organization: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant requested a land claim settlement agreement signed in 2000 between the federal government and the Squamish band. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) initially withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, CIRNAC dropped its reliance on paragraph 20(1)(b) but continued to claim paragraph 20(1)(c) and section 23. The Information Commissioner found that neither CIRNAC nor the third party (Squamish Nation) provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm for paragraph 20(1)(c) or that litigation privilege applied under section 23, particularly as the litigation cited was unrelated and commenced much later than the agreement. The Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety. CIRNAC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order, citing potential adverse impacts on its relationship with the Squamish Nation and its ability to conduct confidential negotiations.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third party information applied
  2. 2Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was reasonably expected
  3. 3Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied
  4. 4Whether the information was prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation
  5. 5Whether the cited litigation was related to the settlement agreement for the purpose of litigation privilege
  6. 6Whether litigation privilege had expired or was waived
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.20(1)(b) third-party business info: Exemption claim dropped by institution
  • s.20(1)(c) third-party financial info: Exemption not upheld
  • s.23 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption not upheld
  • Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed in entirety
  • Compliance with order: Institution refused to implement order
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution refused to comply

Reasoning

CIRNAC and the third party failed to demonstrate a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm for s.20(1)(c), or that the conditions for litigation privilege under s.23 were met, especially regarding the dominant purpose of litigation and the relatedness of the cited legal proceedings.

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

The Information Commissioner ordered Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to disclose the records in their entirety.

Statutes considered
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.23 ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.35 ATIA
  • s.36.3(1) 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