ACCESS TO INFORMATION |
High-Rise Group Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)
T-1409-01
2003 FCT 430, Campbell J.
11/4/03
11 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Access to Information and Privacy Office for Public Works and Government Services Canada to disclose certain in-house "evaluations" generated on basis of information supplied by applicant and others in bidding competition--Applicant claiming exemptions from disclosure under Access to Information Act, s. 20(1)(b),(c),(d) --Regarding applicability of s. 20(1)(b), raw data supplied by applicant in proposal, and evaluation record produced thereon, constitute, for purpose of applying exemption provisions, one and same record--Record submitted by applicant contains financial information--Information supplied by applicant treated consistently in confidential matter by applicant--Only issue remaining: whether information supplied by applicant "confidential"--Pursuant to Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989), 27 C.P.R. (3d) 180 (F.C.T.D.), whether information "confidential" must be decided objectively based on three considerations--(1) Evidence establishing inaccessibility of record--(2) Information communicated in reasonable expectation of confidence--(3) Deciding feature under s. 20(1)(b) whether relationship between Public Works and Government Services Canada and applicant will be fostered for public benefit by keeping record under consideration confidential--Respondent relying on statement of Mr. Justice Strayer in Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Department of the Secretary of State) (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 58 (F.C.T.D.), to argue where record involving expenditure of public funds, disclosure should follow, except in "special cases"--Mr. Justice Strayer's comment read in factual context--Should not be taken to apply to all tender fact scenarios--Present case involving completely different situation, save that government money will be spent on successful bid--While latter factor important, weight placed on it should be determined on actual facts of particular case-- Evidence discloses course of confidential conduct-- Agreement to this course of conduct should not be considered as contrary to Act; instead, agreement should be viewed as necessary, in public interest, to guarantee integrity of bidding process in complicated lease and option-to-buy proposal in present case--Applicant adequately demonstrated record under consideration of confidential nature--Not discharging onus of proof with respect to s. 20(1)(c), (d)--Application allowed--Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, s. 20(1).