Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) improperly withheld information related to requests for proposals (RFPs) under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including those concerning competitive position, government financial interests, personal information, and third-party financial impact and negotiations. The OPMC failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the cited exemptions, with the Commissioner finding the alleged harms to be speculative. The Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety, and the OPMC indicated it would comply.

• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position/negotiations)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests/undue benefit)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and if Privacy Act exceptions applied
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) (third-party financial impact/negotiations)

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) improperly withheld information related to Case No. 17-05835 under several exemptions, including third-party financial information and solicitor-client privilege. The Information Commissioner found that the CTA and a third party failed to demonstrate that the requirements for several exemptions, such as confidential third-party information, were met. The Commissioner ordered the CTA to disclose certain information and to re-exercise its discretion for other withheld records. The CTA agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records related to a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, citing financial impact on a third party. Transport Canada argued that disclosure could lead to public misinterpretation of the preliminary test results. However, the institution and the relevant third party (Ford Canada) did not demonstrate that the exemption requirements were met, especially with the possibility of an explanatory note. The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records in full, along with an explanatory note, finding the complaint well founded.

• Applicability of section 20(1)(c) to preliminary product testing
• Demonstrating material financial impact or competitive harm to a third party
• The role of explanatory notes in mitigating potential harm from disclosure
• Whether public misinterpretation constitutes harm under the Act

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records concerning a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, citing potential financial impact on a third party. Transport Canada initially withheld the records due to concerns about potential misinterpretation, but did not sufficiently demonstrate the harm required for the exemption. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records with an explanatory note, which the institution agreed to implement.

• Whether paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA was properly applied to withhold financial information of a third party.
• Whether subsection 20(4) of the ATIA, which limits the use of paragraph 20(1)(c) for product testing results, applied.
• Whether Transport Canada demonstrated a reasonable expectation of material financial harm or competitive disadvantage to a third party.
• The role and adequacy of an explanatory note in mitigating potential harm from disclosure.