ACCESS TO INFORMATION |
Canada Post Corp. v. National Capital Commission
T-558-01
2002 FCT 700, Kelen J.
21/6/02
9 pp.
Application for judicial review of respondent's decision to disclose certain information concerning financial sponsorship assistance received by National Capital Commission (NCC) from Canada Post with respect to Canada Day, Sound and Light Show, Christmas Lights--Issue whether amounts paid by Canada Post for sponsoring events exempt from disclosure pursuant to Access to Information Act, s. 20(1)(b),(c),(d)-- Original request for records concerning NCC assistance 1999-2001 received from federal government agencies, per project including future year commitments made beyond 1999; NCC assistance received 1999-2001 from all other sponsors including private sector, other governments for same period April 1, 1997 to present or commitments for future years-- Canada Post objected to release of information, but NCC rejected Canada Post's submissions--Application allowed-- Standard of review under Act, s. 44 that of correctness-- Court's role to consider whether information ought to be disclosed on de novo basis--Purpose of Act to provide public with right of access to information; party attempting to prevent disclosure has heavy onus to prove information exempt from disclosure under Act--Act, s. 20(1)(b) (confidential financial or commercial information supplied in confidence), requiring meeting four-part test set out in Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989), 27 F.T.R. 194 (F.C.T.D.), not applicable--Evidence on record lacking as Canada Post did not produce confidentiality agreement with NCC in this regard--Therefore, at no point did applicant make it clear information has been "treated consistently in confidential manner"--In any event Act, s. 20(1)(b) not applicable as negotiated amounts of financial assistance cannot be characterized as information "supplied to government institution by third party": Halifax Development Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), [1994] F.C.J. No. 2035 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)--As to Act, s. 20(1)(c) (financial or competitive prejudice), disclosure of amounts paid for sponsorship of events can reasonably be expected to prejudice competitive position of Canada Post as private sector competitors will probably use information by trying to outbid Canada Post--Other groups might also use information to seek increased sponsorship funding from Canada Post (situation analogous to rental rates information in Perez Bramalea Ltd. v. Canada (National Capital Commission), [1995] F.C.J. No. 63 (F.C.T.D.) (QL))--Court will therefore order respondent to refuse disclosure on this basis--Act, s. 20(1)(d) (interference with contractual or other negotiations of third party) not applicable on basis of evidence presented--Application allowed on basis of Act, s. 20(1)(c)-- However, Court would have expected Canada Post to have entered into confidentiality agreement to protect disclosure of financial information which could reasonably be expected to result in financial loss or prejudice to its competitive position --In view of lack of evidence, together with respondent's success on two of three grounds of exemption, both parties will bear own costs--Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, s. 20(1)(b),(c),(d).