5822-07644 — Public Services and Procurement Canada
The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under several sections of the Access to Information Act related to financial statements for the leaseback of seven specific buildings. The OIC investigated claims under paragraphs 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b). The complainant withdrew their allegation regarding subsection 19(1) and certain banking information. The OIC found that PSPC's arguments for withholding the information were largely speculative and lacked sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the exemptions claimed, particularly concerning the potential for material harm or interference with negotiations. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC could not demonstrate that it met all the requirements of the exemptions, especially given the public interest in transparency regarding significant public funds. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and PSPC was ordered to disclose most of the withheld information. PSPC subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.
- 1Whether s.18(d) government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual, was properly applied
- 2Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm government financial interests
- 3Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm the Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy
- 4Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could result in an individual or corporation receiving an undue benefit
- 5Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, was properly applied
- 6Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
- 7Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b)
- 8Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
- 9Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
- 10Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party, was properly applied
- 11Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party
- 12Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could injure the competitive position of the third party
- 13Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party, was properly applied
- 14Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations under s.20(1)(d)
- 15Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(d) could interfere with those negotiations
- 16Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations, was properly applied
- 17Whether the information is an account of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b)
- 18Whether the information reveals the nature of deliberations under s.21(1)(b)
- s.18(d) financial interests: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(b) financial information: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(c) financial information: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(d) financial information: Exemption not upheld
- s.21(1)(b) advice to government: Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Most records ordered disclosed
- Compliance with order: Institution agreed to comply
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
PSPC failed to provide sufficient evidence and relied on speculative arguments to justify the application of the exemptions. The Commissioner found that the institution did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm or that the information met the specific requirements of the claimed exemptions.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services was ordered to disclose information withheld under paragraph 18(d) (except where s.19(1) was concurrently applied), information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) (except for non-municipal invoices from third parties or where s.19(1) was concurrently applied), and information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(b).
- s.18(d) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.20(1)(d) ATIA
- s.21(1)(b) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) ATIA
- s.36.3 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