Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

An institution applied to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right to access information. The institution claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Information Commissioner found that the institution had indeed made reasonable efforts to assist the requester and that the request, due to its breadth and the estimated 700,000 pages it would generate, constituted an abuse of the right to access information as it would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations and hinder other requesters' access rights. The Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to applying to decline the request.
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access information.
• Whether the application to decline to act was submitted in a timely manner.
• The substantial volume of records and its impact on institutional operations and other requesters' access rights.

The complainant requested a copy of an agreement between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and the Musqueam Indian Band. The VFPA withheld the entire agreement, citing exemptions related to competitive position and confidential third-party information. The Information Commissioner found that the VFPA did not adequately justify withholding the information under the competitive position exemption and failed to reasonably exercise its discretion. The Commissioner also found that the information did not meet the criteria for the confidential third-party information exemption. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether the agreement between VFPA and Musqueam Indian Band qualified for exemption under subsection 18(b) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information under subsection 18(b) ATIA.
• Whether the agreement contained information qualifying for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party as required by paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records concerning the Laval River slope stabilization project. The Information Commissioner found that DFO failed to justify withholding information under exemptions related to confidential government information (s. 13(1)(c)) and financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner upheld the withholding of personal information under s. 19(1). DFO was ordered to release the information withheld under s. 13(1)(c) and s. 20(1)(c), and indicated its intention to comply.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body (s. 13(1)(c) ATIA)
• Whether information constituted personal information (s. 19(1) ATIA)
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause a material financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)