The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

22,099 decisions in the archive
OntarioFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order PO-4469-R

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Dec 19, 20235821-04189Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Privy Council Office, 5821-04189

The Information Commissioner ordered Privy Council Office to provide a complete response to the access request on or before March 1, 2024.

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Privy Council Office, 5821-04189

Dec 19, 20235821-04189

The Information Commissioner ordered Privy Council Office to provide a complete response to the access request on or before March 1, 2024.

YukonAccess to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Yukon flag

Investigation Report — ATP19-75R

Subscribe to open Yukon decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
YukonAccess to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Yukon flag

Investigation Report — ATP19-67R

Subscribe to open Yukon decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
YukonAccess to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Yukon flag

Investigation Report — ATP19-69R

Subscribe to open Yukon decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
YukonAccess to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Yukon flag

Investigation Report — ATP19-74R

Subscribe to open Yukon decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2023 QCCAI 389 — Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2023 QCCAI 391 — Ville de Saguenay

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2023 QCCAI 392 — Montréal (Ville)

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
British Columbia flag

F23-109 — BC OIPC order 2734

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
British Columbia flag

F23-108 — BC OIPC order 2733

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
British Columbia flag

F23-107 — BC OIPC order 2732

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioPersonal Health Information Protection Act
Ontario flag

CYFSA DECISION 16 - 2023-12-18

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioPersonal Health Information Protection Act
Ontario flag

CYFSA Decision 15 - 2023-12-18

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Dec 18, 20235821-07279Indexed Jun 30, 2026

5821-07279 — Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Musqueam Indian Band

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

An applicant complained that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld an agreement with the Musqueam Indian Band under sections 18(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that while some parts of the agreement could reasonably be expected to interfere with the VFPA's negotiations under s.18(b), other parts were publicly known or deducible and did not meet the exemption criteria. Furthermore, the VFPA failed to reasonably exercise its discretion by not considering factors in favour of disclosure. Regarding s.20(1)(b), the Commissioner determined that the agreement, in its entirety, did not meet the criteria for confidential financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, particularly because it consisted of negotiated terms rather than information supplied by a third party. The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose information not meeting s.20(1)(b) criteria and to re-exercise discretion for information meeting s.18(b). The VFPA agreed to release some information but did not address the re-exercise of discretion.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5821-07279 — Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Musqueam Indian Band

Dec 18, 20235821-07279
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

An applicant complained that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld an agreement with the Musqueam Indian Band under sections 18(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that while some parts of the agreement could reasonably be expected to interfere with the VFPA's negotiations under s.18(b), other parts were publicly known or deducible and did not meet the exemption criteria. Furthermore, the VFPA failed to reasonably exercise its discretion by not considering factors in favour of disclosure. Regarding s.20(1)(b), the Commissioner determined that the agreement, in its entirety, did not meet the criteria for confidential financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, particularly because it consisted of negotiated terms rather than information supplied by a third party. The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose information not meeting s.20(1)(b) criteria and to re-exercise discretion for information meeting s.18(b). The VFPA agreed to release some information but did not address the re-exercise of discretion.

Key Issues
  • Whether s.18(b) competitive position harm was reasonably expected
  • Whether s.18(b) interference with negotiations was reasonably expected
  • Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(b)
  • Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b)
  • Whether the information was confidential under s.20(1)(b)
  • Whether the information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b)
  • Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)