We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Canadian International Development Agency)

SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Canadian International Development Agency)

Case number:
2007 FCA 397
Date of decision:
12 December 2007
Court / Arbiter:
Federal Court of Appeal (reviewable by Supreme Court) ( Appellate )


Records of auditor’s working papers regarding a project involving Canadian International Development Agency and a private corporation do not constitute “confidential third party information” and “personal information”.

Audits (including tests, auditing procedures)
Commercial confidentiality (including financial/economic interests of private parties or public authorities)
Contracts / Agreements (use of public funds, negotiations)
Judicial review (including access to courts)
Minutes (including transcripts and other records of meetings)
Privacy (harm to private interests, including life, health, safety)
RTI law
Third parties

Case details:


The Ministers for International Cooperation and Foreign Affairs decided to release records of auditor’s working papers regarding a project involving the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and SNC Lavalin Inc. (SNC), a private corporation (para. 4). SNC challenged the release of the information under Section 44 of the Access to Information Act (ATI Act), on the ground that it included statements from minutes of a meeting that involved “confidential third party information” and “personal information”, covered by section 20(1) and section 19 of the ATI Act respectively (para. 5). SNC’s Section 20(1) claim relied on Section 20(1)(b), which protects confidential information provided to a government institution by a third party, and Section 20(1)(c), which protects information that could be financially damaging if disclosed (paras. 6, 11).


The Court found that the information was not “confidential information” under Section 20(1)(b) as the evidence provided by SNC was insufficient to reverse the lower court’s finding that the information was not provided with an expectation of confidence and that the relationship with SNC was neither a fiduciary one, nor one that will benefit the public through confidential communication (paras. 6-7). The Court also found that the information could not be protected under Section 20(1)(c) as there was insufficient evidence to create a reasonable expectation of probable harm to SNC, either by harming it financially or prejudicing its competitive position (para. 12).

Finally, the Court did find, in accordance with a previous decision (H.J. Heinz Co. v. Canada), that Section 19’s protection of “personal information” can be invoked in the context of a corporate third party seeking to prevent disclosure (para. 14). However, in this case, the information fell into an exemption allowing disclosure of relevant information regarding individuals performing services under contract for the government (paras. 14-15).


Judgment of the Court.