Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)5821-07447
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 31

Organization: Public Services and Procurement CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

An anonymous applicant complained that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought annual rent figures for leases exceeding $500,000 signed by PSPC in specific cities between 2018 and 2022. PSPC and several third parties argued that disclosure would harm PSPC's competitive position and negotiations, and constitute confidential third-party financial information, also suggesting paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d). The Commissioner found PSPC's and the third parties' arguments for all claimed exemptions to be speculative, failing to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm or objective confidentiality. Specifically, the rent figures were not considered "supplied by" the third parties for the purpose of s.20(1)(b). Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the records in full. PSPC subsequently gave notice that it would comply with the order.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) ATIA
  2. 2Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to harm the competitive position of PSPC under s.18(b) ATIA
  3. 3Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of PSPC under s.18(b) ATIA
  4. 4Whether PSPC's representations on harm under s.18(b) were speculative
  5. 5Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA
  6. 6Whether annual rent figures constitute financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  7. 7Whether annual rent figures are confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  8. 8Whether annual rent figures are publicly available
  9. 9Whether the circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation that annual rent figures would not be disclosed
  10. 10Whether the relationship between PSPC and third parties would be fostered for public benefit by confidentiality of annual rent figures
  11. 11Whether annual rent figures were "supplied by" the third party to PSPC under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  12. 12Whether third parties consistently treated annual rent figures as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  13. 13Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) ATIA
  14. 14Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  15. 15Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to prejudice a third party's competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  16. 16Whether third parties' representations on harm under s.20(1)(c) were speculative
  17. 17Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(d) ATIA
  18. 18Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to interfere with the contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
  19. 19Whether third parties' representations on interference under s.20(1)(d) were speculative
  20. 20Whether the complaint was well founded under s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  21. 21Whether an order for disclosure should be issued under s.36.1 ATIA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • s.18(b) financial interests: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party information: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(c) financial interests: Exemption not upheld
  • s.20(1)(d) financial interests: Exemption not upheld
  • Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
  • Compliance with order: Institution complied with order
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered

Reasoning

The institution and third parties failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm for any claimed exemption, with their arguments being speculative and not meeting the specific requirements of the Access to Information Act.

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

The Commissioner ordered Public Services and Procurement Canada to disclose the records in full.

Statutes considered
  • s.18(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(c) ATIA
  • s.20(1)(d) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.37(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.20(5) 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