5823-02471 — Transport Canada
The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information from contracts related to an aggregate extraction operation on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA), claiming exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while some financial information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) due to potential harm to competitive position, and certain commercial/technical information met some requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), the institution and third parties failed to demonstrate that the entirety of the contract was confidential or that its disclosure would interfere with negotiations. Specifically, much of the information was found to be publicly available, negating the confidentiality claim for those portions. The Commissioner concluded that the institution had improperly withheld significant parts of the contract. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to disclose the content of the contract, with specific redactions for information that met the exemption criteria.
- 1Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was reasonably expected
- 2Whether s.20(1)(b) information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
- 3Whether s.20(1)(b) information was confidential
- 4Whether s.20(1)(b) information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
- 5Whether s.20(1)(b) information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party
- 6Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party was reasonably expected
- s.20(1)(c) financial information: Exemption upheld for some financial information
- s.20(1)(b) commercial/technical information: Exemption upheld for some commercial/technical information
- Confidentiality of contract: Not upheld for most of the contract
- Disclosure of contract: Ordered with specific redactions
- Complaint validity: Complaint found well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The institution and third parties failed to demonstrate that the majority of the withheld information met the requirements of the claimed exemptions. Much of the information was publicly available, and the arguments for confidentiality and interference with negotiations were largely speculative or not sufficiently substantiated for the entire contract.
The Minister of Transport is ordered to disclose the content of the contract, with specific redactions for information that met the exemption criteria under s.20(1)(c) and s.20(1)(b).
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.20(1)(c) ATIA
- s.20(1)(d) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.35(2)(c) ATIA
- s.36.3 ATIA
- s.36.1(4) ATIA
- s.37(5) 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) (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