Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld "Repayments to Date" figures for 16 projects related to 12 third parties under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED and several third parties argued that disclosure could lead to material financial impact or harm competitive position. The Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties demonstrated a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of the specific repayment figures and a reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner also considered, but rejected, the applicability of paragraph 20(1)(d) for one third party, finding insufficient evidence of interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the withheld "Repayments to Date" figures. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party or harm to competitive position) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(d)

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on an access request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The request sought records related to disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure and Protection Act, submitted by or provided to the requester. The institution contended that the request was part of a pattern of repetitive and duplicative requests for substantively the same information, much of which the requester already possessed or had provided to the institution. The Commissioner found that the institution successfully demonstrated that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access, noting the repeated requests for identical information and the requester's refusal to narrow the scope. The Commissioner also determined that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist obligations by attempting to clarify and refine the request. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under s.4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA