Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5820-04384
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 19

Organization: Fisheries and Oceans CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to commercial fishing agreements with Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) from 2000 to 2020, citing exemptions under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that DFO correctly applied subsection 19(1) to personal information that remained after some signatures were voluntarily disclosed. However, for much of the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), DFO and EFN failed to demonstrate that it was objectively confidential, supplied by a third party, or consistently treated as confidential, leading to its rejection for many portions. The Commissioner upheld paragraph 20(1)(b) for specific financial details like EFN contribution amounts, salary information, activity costs, and supplier quotes. Furthermore, the Commissioner rejected the application of paragraph 20(1)(c), concluding that the alleged financial harm or competitive injury was speculative and lacked concrete evidence. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded. DFO was ordered to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), and the institution agreed to implement the order.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the information met the definition of "personal information" under s.19(1) ATIA.
  2. 2Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA regarding personal information.
  3. 3Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
  4. 4Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
  5. 5Whether the information was not otherwise available from public sources (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
  6. 6Whether the information originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation of confidence (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
  7. 7Whether the relationship between the government and third party would be fostered for public benefit by keeping the information confidential (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
  8. 8Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
  9. 9Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
  10. 10Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
  11. 11Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm a third party's competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
  12. 12Whether the alleged harm under s.20(1)(c) ATIA was well beyond a mere possibility or speculative.
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld
  • s.20(1)(b) third-party information: Exemption rejected for most information
  • s.20(1)(b) specific financial details: Exemption upheld
  • s.20(1)(c) financial harm: Exemption rejected
  • Disclosure order: Records ordered disclosed
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

DFO and the third party failed to demonstrate that much of the information met the requirements for s.20(1)(b) and s.20(1)(c), particularly regarding objective confidentiality, being 'supplied' by a third party, consistent treatment of confidentiality, and the speculative nature of the alleged harm.

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

The Information Commissioner ordered Fisheries and Oceans Canada to disclose information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), with the exception of information properly withheld under subsection 19(1).

Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.35(2)(c) ATIA
  • s.36.3(1) ATIA
  • s.37(2) ATIA
  • s.43 ATIA
  • s.19(2) ATIA
  • s.20(5) ATIA
  • s.20(6) ATIA
  • s.20(2) ATIA
  • s.20(4) 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