Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5823-01403
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Shared Services Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 21

Organization: Shared Services CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) improperly withheld information from a Gartner, Inc. report on cloud economics under various sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, SSC claimed exemptions under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d), later dropping 19(1) and 20(1)(d) but adding 16(2). Gartner also asserted exemptions under 20(1)(a) and 68(a). The Commissioner found that while some information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), much of the claimed information did not, including administrative details and government-supplied data. The Commissioner also concluded that SSC failed to properly exercise discretion for information withheld under subsection 16(2) and did not establish that paragraphs 20(1)(a) or 20(1)(c) applied. Furthermore, SSC failed to adhere to severance requirements under section 25. The complaint was found to be well founded, and SSC was ordered to re-exercise discretion for the subsection 16(2) claim and disclose specific portions of the report.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act
  2. 2Whether subsection 19(1) (personal information) applied to the information
  3. 3Whether paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) applied to the information
  4. 4Whether subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) applied to the security measures on page 134
  5. 5Whether Shared Services Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 16(2)
  6. 6Whether paragraph 20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets) applied to the information
  7. 7Whether the information was a "plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound" under paragraph 20(1)(a)
  8. 8Whether the information was "secret" under paragraph 20(1)(a)
  9. 9Whether the third party intended to treat the information as secret under paragraph 20(1)(a)
  10. 10Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the information
  11. 11Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under paragraph 20(1)(b)
  12. 12Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (not available from other sources)
  13. 13Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (reasonable expectation of non-disclosure)
  14. 14Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (relationship fostered for public benefit)
  15. 15Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under paragraph 20(1)(b)
  16. 16Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b)
  17. 17Whether paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) applied to the information
  18. 18Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party under paragraph 20(1)(c)
  19. 19Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party under paragraph 20(1)(c)
  20. 20Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm well beyond a mere possibility under paragraph 20(1)(c)
  21. 21Whether section 25 (severance) was properly applied by Shared Services Canada
  22. 22Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to administrative details
  23. 23Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to introductory slides
  24. 24Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to engagement objectives
  25. 25Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to section title slides
  26. 26Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to table of contents
  27. 27Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to government information
  28. 28Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to file names and icons
  29. 29Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to project-specific advice paid for by the government
  30. 30Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to application names and descriptions
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • s.20(1)(b) financial interests: Exemption partially upheld
  • s.16(2) law enforcement: Improper exercise of discretion
  • s.20(1)(a) trade secrets: Exemption not established
  • s.20(1)(c) financial impact: Exemption not established
  • Severance: Failure to adhere to requirements
  • Complaint outcome: Well founded
  • Disclosure order: Specific portions ordered disclosed
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

Shared Services Canada improperly withheld information by failing to reasonably exercise discretion under subsection 16(2), by failing to establish that paragraphs 20(1)(a) and 20(1)(c) applied, and by improperly applying paragraph 20(1)(b) to certain information. SSC also failed to properly sever non-exempt information as required by section 25.

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

The Commissioner ordered Shared Services Canada to re-exercise its discretion regarding information withheld under subsection 16(2) and to disclose specific administrative details, project-specific advice, and government-supplied information.

Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(d) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.16(2) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.25 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