
5821-05702 — Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
The complainant requested records concerning noise and vibration studies for the Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Project. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) withheld information under several exemptions and provided some documents in an illegible format. The Commissioner found that the VFPA improperly withheld information under sections 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(d) of the Act, and failed its duty to assist by providing illegible records. While some information was properly withheld under sections 13(1), 18(b), 18(d), 19(1), and 21(1)(a), the institution could not justify the application of other exemptions or the illegibility of records. Specifically, section 20(1)(b) and (d) claims were rejected due to a lack of objective confidentiality and speculative harm. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose specific information and provide legible copies of records. The VFPA notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.
- 1Whether s.13(1) confidential information from government bodies applied to pages 396-397 of Part 2.
- 2Whether s.13(1) confidential information from government bodies applied to page 398 of Part 2 (VFPA's own email signature/COVID message).
- 3Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.13(2) for information meeting s.13(1).
- 4Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to specific estimated costs, specifics of the draft partnership agreement, and details of selected/preferred options.
- 5Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to peripheral details (e.g., where funding was requested from).
- 6Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to information showing no clear preference or options not seriously considered.
- 7Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.18(b) for information meeting the exemption.
- 8Whether s.18(d) government financial interests or undue benefit applied to specific costing information.
- 9Whether s.18(d) government financial interests or undue benefit applied to potential measures or number of mitigation options.
- 10Whether s.19(1) personal information applied to names of third-party employees.
- 11Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2) for information meeting s.19(1).
- 12Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical.
- 13Whether s.20(1)(b) information was objectively confidential (not publicly available, reasonable expectation of confidence, fostered public benefit).
- 14Whether s.20(1)(b) information was supplied by a third party (specifically, negotiated terms).
- 15Whether s.20(1)(b) information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party.
- 16Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party applied to information withheld by CP.
- 17Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to information on pages 428-429 of Part 2.
- 18Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to objective, factual, or statistical information.
- 19Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to data relating to the number of receivers exceeding criteria.
- 20Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(a) for information meeting the exemption.
- 21Whether s.21(1)(d) plans related to personnel management or administration applied to plans for future growth.
- 22Whether s.21(1)(d) was contravened by applying it to a consultant's slide deck (s.21(2)(b)).
- 23Whether the VFPA met its obligations under s.4(2.1) to make every reasonable effort to assist the complainant by providing legible copies.
- s.18(b) financial interests: Exemption not upheld for some information
- s.18(d) financial interests: Exemption not upheld for some information
- s.20(1)(b) third-party info: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(d) third-party info: Exemption not upheld
- s.21(1)(a) advice: Exemption not upheld for some information
- s.21(1)(d) advice: Exemption not upheld
- Duty to assist: Failed due to illegible records
- Disclosure of records: Specific information ordered disclosed
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered and legible copies to be provided
The institution failed to justify several exemptions and did not meet its duty to assist by providing illegible records, leading to an order for disclosure and provision of legible copies.
The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose specific information improperly withheld under sections 13(1), 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(d), and to provide legible copies of maps, photos, and tables.
- s.13(1) ATIA
- s.13(2) ATIA
- s.18(b) ATIA
- s.18(d) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.19(2) ATIA
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.20(1)(d) ATIA
- s.21(1)(a) ATIA
- s.21(1)(d) ATIA
- s.4(2.1) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.30(1)(f) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) ATIA
- s.37(2) ATIA
- s.43 ATIA
- s.21(2)(b) 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