Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (Re), OIC 2022 39
The complainant alleged that the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought information related to funding applications from The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, no longer requiring investigation into s.19(1) or specific financial columns for non-funded third parties. The OIC sought representations from FedDev Ontario and relevant third parties, but neither provided evidence to support the applied exemptions. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements for confidentiality, that it was 'supplied' by a third party, or that disclosure would cause a reasonable expectation of harm to financial interests or negotiations. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and FedDev Ontario was ordered to disclose the withheld information.
- 1Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
- 2Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied
- 3Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
- 4Whether the information was confidential
- 5Whether the information was supplied by a third party
- 6Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
- 7Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied
- 8Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party
- 9Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(c)
- 10Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party exemption was properly applied
- 11Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations
- 12Whether disclosure could interfere with those negotiations
- 13Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(d)
- s.20(1)(b) third party financial: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(c) third party financial: Exemption not upheld
- s.20(1)(d) third party financial: Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
Neither the institution nor the third parties provided sufficient evidence or representations to demonstrate that the requirements of the claimed exemptions (s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d)) were met. The Commissioner found that the information did not meet the criteria for confidentiality, was not always 'supplied' by a third party, and no reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure was established.
The President of FedDev Ontario is ordered to disclose all information withheld pursuant to paragraphs 20(1)(b), (c), and (d), with the exception of specific financial columns on page 27 that were deemed out of scope by the complainant.
- 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.36.1(1) ATIA
- s.37(4) 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