Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

InfoSource Bulletin 2003 - Privacy Act and Access to Information Act

Cistel Technology Inc. v. Correctional Service Canada
Indexed as: Cistel Technology Inc. v. Canada
(Correctional Service)

File No.:	T-2360-00
Reference:	[2002] F.C.J. No. 328 (QL) (F.C.T.D.)
Date of decision:	March 5, 2002
Before:	McKeown J.
Section(s) of ATIA / PA:	Ss. 20(1)(b), 44 Access to Information Act (ATIA)

Abstract

Third party judicial review
Scope of request for access
Confidentiality test not met

Issues

Were certain records produced by CSC part of the scope of the request for access?

Did the information to be disclosed fall under para. 20(1)(b) of the ATIA?

Facts

The applicant, Cistel Technology Inc. (Cistel) provides information technology personnel to perform work pursuant to various contracts and standing offers it secures. It successfully bid for three standing offers with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). A request for access was made for "copies of all invoices for services Technology Inc. to Correctional rendered by Cistel Services Canada from 1997 to date". Cistel's invoices indicate the name and the position of the personnel performing the work, their per diem rates, the number of days they have worked on the project that month and the total charges invoiced for that period. CSC indicated to Cistel its intention to disclose all invoices with the exception of the individuals' per diem rates, the number of days they worked on the project and the total charges broken down by individual. Cistel thereupon applied for judicial review, seeking an order that only its identity and the total contract price be released under the ATIA.

The main question is whether the invoices, without the information that CSC agreed to remove, are confidential. The remaining information consisted of the names of Cistel's employees who had worked on the project, their position and the total dollar amount for a one-month period. A secondary question is whether the payment vouchers and the task request/authorization forms of CSC which were produced by CSC were part of the request.

Decision

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The respondent, CSC, was directed not to disclose the payment vouchers and the task request/authorization forms.

Reasons

Issue 1
On the issue of the scope of the request, the Court was of the view that CSC's payment vouchers and its task request/authorization forms were not invoices and, therefore, should not be disclosed as part of the access request.

Issue 2
The applicant failed to establish that the information left on the invoices was confidential information in an objective sense and that it had treated it consistently in a confidential manner: Air Atonabee Limited v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1987), 27 F.T.R. 194 (F.C.T.D.).

There is nothing on the invoices to indicate that they are confidential. The names of the support staff that work for Cistel are easily ascertainable by companies in that business and, therefore, cannot be said to be confidential from any objective standpoint. Furthermore, a total dollar amount for a one‑month period would not be of great assistance to any competitor.

The affidavit of Cistel's Chief Executive Officer states that the information was treated in a confidential manner but fails to indicate how this was done. A mere assertion, without direct cogent evidence on how the information was treated in a confidential manner, does not suffice to establish the application of para. 20(1)(b).