ARCHIVED - Info Source Bulletin Number 29

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Canada Post Corporation v. Minister of Transport

Indexed as: Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Transport)

File No.:	T-535-04; T-568-04
Reference:	2005 FC 458
Date of decision:	April 6, 2005
Before:	MacKay D.J.
Sections of ATIA / PA:	Ss. 20(1)(b), (c), (d) Access to Information Act (ATIA)

Abstract

• Generally descriptive information not protected
• Alleged unique role of CPC irrelevant consideration in s. 20(1) analysis
• Mosaic effect

Issues

Do the records at issue meet the requirements of paras. 20(1)(b), (c) or (d) so as to exempt them from disclosure?^[5]

Facts

These are two applications for judicial review against decisions made by the Minister of Transport to release certain records which contained information relating to Canada Post Corp. (CPC). CPC claims that the records are exempt from disclosure as commercial confidential information which it has treated in a confidential manner even if not all the records were so labelled. CPC also submits that their release would cause serious loss to it or adversely affect its competitive position and that the disclosure of some of them might interfere with contractual or other negotiations of CPC.

In support of its claims, CPC made the following general submissions. First, it argued that CPC's exclusion from the scope of the ATIA is due to its role and special responsibilities and that CPC itself maintains its own communications, even with the Minister responsible for it, as confidential, except for planned public announcements. That practice, it is argued, warrants deference from the Court particularly since the information in question is of the type exchanged only at the highest levels of CPC. Secondly, CPC argues that the Court should exempt the information at issue from disclosure in a manner analogous to that accorded to security intelligence information by reason of the mosaic effect of piecing together bits of information that may at first glance appear unrelated.

Decision

The application was allowed in part. Certain records were ordered released.

Reasons

The documents at issue are not confidential so as to support a claim based on para. 20(1)(b). Those that bear a classification of "confidentiality" are not in their nature confidential in the ordinary sense even if CPC considers them so for its purposes. Those that might qualify as confidential in the sense that they concern CPC's operations, are generally descriptive, with any specific commercial information redacted by Transport Canada.

The affidavit evidence of CPC fails to establish that the disclosure of the records is likely, if released, to result in material financial loss or gain to CPC, or that it can be reasonably expected to prejudice its competitive position or to interfere with its contractual or other negotiations.

Neither of the two general submissions made by CPC support a conclusion that the information at issue satisfies the criteria of subs. 20(1) of the ATIA. With respect to the mosaic effect argument, the Court distinguished the decision of Justice Addy in Re Henrie and Security Intelligence Review Committee et al. (1988), 53 D.L.R. (4^th) 568 (F.C.T.D.) where the Court therein was concerned with the Canada Evidence Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act which specifically authorized non-disclosure of security information. The Court reiterated the general purpose of the ATIA that information held by government is to be disclosed unless it is specifically exempt under the ATIA, which exemptions are to be narrowly construed. The basis for exemption has not, in the present circumstances, been established.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page