Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, concerning records related to $103 million in funding from the National Trade Corridors Fund. The OIC found that VFPA did not demonstrate that all information withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d) met the exemption requirements. Specifically, VFPA agreed to disclose some information initially withheld under these sections. For paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), neither VFPA nor the third party (Canadian National Railway) provided sufficient evidence to justify the exemptions. The Commissioner ordered VFPA to disclose all information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), and specific information withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d). VFPA subsequently agreed to implement the order, leading to a well-founded complaint.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position or negotiations of government institutions) was properly applied to fiscal year budgeting, Monitoring Committee, and project information
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position or negotiations of government institutions) was properly applied to estimated project expenditures and contributions
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to commodity information
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to certain project details
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to future development plans
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to project costs
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(d) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to project descriptions and CN funding information
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party) was properly applied to the name of a contributor and contribution amount from CN
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of interference with third-party negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable 2,280-day extension to respond to an access to information request. Justice claimed the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, citing a large volume of records and the need for consultations. The Information Commissioner found that while the request involved a large volume of records and responding within 30 days would interfere with operations, Justice failed to sufficiently justify the reasonableness of the 2,190-day extension claimed under 9(1)(a). Specifically, Justice did not explain how the duration of various processing steps was determined or why certain steps could not be conducted concurrently. However, the Commissioner found the 90-day extension for consultations under 9(1)(b) to be reasonable. Due to the unreasonable extension under 9(1)(a), Justice was deemed to have refused access. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and Justice was ordered to provide a final response forthwith.

• Whether the request was for a large volume of records or required searching through a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether responding within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether the length of the time extension claimed under s.9(1)(a) was reasonable
• Whether consultations with other institutions or bodies were necessary under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the length of the time extension claimed under s.9(1)(b) was reasonable
• Whether the institution was in deemed refusal under s.10(3)