Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information related to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, specifically concerning biofilm and shorebirds, under several exemptions of the Access to Information Act. The complaint initially included exemptions s.16(2) and s.19(1), but these were later removed from the scope of the investigation. The OIC found that ECCC had appropriately applied s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) to most of the withheld records, as they constituted advice, recommendations, or accounts of consultations. However, ECCC's application of s.20(1)(b), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b) to a scientific manuscript was deemed improper, as the manuscript was found not to be confidential and ECCC later agreed to its disclosure. The Commissioner also noted inconsistencies in ECCC's disclosure practices. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC was ordered to disclose the manuscript and correct the inconsistencies.

• Whether s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied (removed from scope)
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied (removed from scope)
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether the scientific manuscript was 'financial, commercial, scientific or technical' information under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the scientific manuscript was 'confidential' under s.20(1)(b) (Air Atonabee test)
• Whether the information in the scientific manuscript was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information in the scientific manuscript as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to other records
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to other records
• Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b)
• Whether there were inconsistencies in ECCC's disclosure of information

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including s.16(2), s.19(1), s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, and s.69(1), related to the Alternate Independent Process for St-Anne’s Residential School hearings. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the s.19(1) allegation. The Commissioner found that Justice appropriately applied s.16(2), s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), and s.69(1). However, Justice could not demonstrate that all information withheld under s.23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) met the exemption's requirements, particularly regarding communications outside the direct solicitor-client relationship or where common interest privilege was not established. The Commissioner recommended disclosure of the improperly withheld s.23 information. Justice maintained its position on s.23 but committed to reviewing the records for potential disclosure. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.16(2) facilitating the commission of an offence was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.16(2)
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.21(1)(a)
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.21(1)(b)
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client privilege was properly applied to all communications
• Whether s.23 litigation privilege was properly applied to all communications
• Whether common interest privilege was established for s.23 claims
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.23
• Whether s.69(1) Cabinet confidences was properly applied