Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 54
The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld At-Sea Observer (ASO) data for black dogfish bycatch from 2000-2021 under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, and that it applied an unofficial "Rule of 5" policy. During the investigation, DFO also suggested the information could fall under subsection 19(1). The Commissioner found that DFO failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b), as it was not shown to be financial, commercial, scientific, or technical, nor objectively confidential, nor consistently treated as confidential by third parties. Similarly, DFO's arguments for withholding under paragraph 20(1)(c) were deemed speculative and lacked evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm without identifiable third parties. The Commissioner also concluded that the information did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1) because there was no serious possibility of identifying individuals, a finding supported by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Finally, the investigation revealed that DFO did not apply the alleged "Rule of 5" policy to this access request. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DFO was ordered to disclose all the information.
- 1Whether the requested information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
- 2Whether the requested information was confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
- 3Whether the requested information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
- 4Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
- 5Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to cause material financial impact on a third party or injure its competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
- 6Whether the information constituted personal information under s.19(1) ATIA.
- 7Whether DFO applied an unofficial internal policy ("Rule of 5") to refuse access to the information.
- 8Whether DFO adequately identified third parties for notification under s.33 and s.35(2)(c) ATIA.
- s.20(1)(b) exemption: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(c) exemption: Exemption not upheld
- s.19(1) personal information: Exemption not upheld
- Application of 'Rule of 5': Policy not applied
- Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
Fisheries and Oceans Canada failed to demonstrate that the requested information met the criteria for exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), or subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, and did not apply the alleged internal policy to refuse access.
The Information Commissioner ordered Fisheries and Oceans Canada to disclose all of the information, and DFO gave notice that it would implement the order.
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.33 ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) ATIA
- s.36.1 ATIA
- s.36.2 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) (659 of 1,639), Nova Scotia (50 of 473), Quebec (10 of 7,094), Prince Edward Island (4 of 281), Yukon (2 of 76).
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