Transport Canada was ordered to release third-party information in records about a directive to stop Human External Cargo operations, after the Information Commissioner rejected a commercial-confidentiality claim.
The Sept. 3 decision, Transport Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 60, concerns an access request about a directive issued to operators in the Prairie and Northern Region. It addresses disclosure and the adequacy of the records search, not whether the underlying operational directive was lawful or justified.
The order is narrow: disclose the third-party information on pages seven and eight of the department’s response. The commissioner accepted the remaining withholding and found the search reasonable.
Contract information lacked demonstrated confidentiality
The disputed commercial details appeared in a 2020 summary of Class D operations. They concerned operators’ contracts and equipment holdings.
Paragraph 20(1)(b) requires more than commercially relevant information. The material must also have been supplied by a third party, be objectively confidential and have been consistently treated as confidential by that party.
The commissioner accepted that the information was commercial and came from third parties. The other requirements were not established.
Although the contract-award information from the relevant period no longer appeared available, Alberta routinely made such information public. Information previously public was not objectively confidential merely because it could no longer be found. Nor was a reasonable expectation of confidentiality demonstrated for the contract details. Evidence of consistently confidential treatment was missing.
Transport Canada itself said the exemption’s requirements were no longer met and that it would release the material if ordered. Mustang Helicopters, one of two third parties contacted, offered no representations after confirming its understanding of the information at issue; the other did not respond.
Deliberations and legal advice remained protected
The commissioner accepted protection for exchanges in which public servants discussed matters with a view to reaching decisions. These were not records of reasons for decisions affecting a person’s rights or reports prepared by outside advisers of the kind excluded from that exemption.
Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion, considering such matters as sensitivity, potential litigation, confidentiality expectations and consistency with other access responses. Because the deliberations exemption resolved the issue, overlapping federal-provincial and advice exemptions were not separately examined.
Confidential legal-advice communications were also protected. The requester pointed to apparently similar information released in other access responses. The department explained that it had handled more than 400 requests on related subjects, had cross-checked many responses and considered any inconsistent disclosure inadvertent.
On that record, the commissioner found no waiver of privilege and no evidence of consistent or widespread release. The ruling did not establish that every accidental disclosure, in every setting, necessarily preserves privilege.
The commissioner also accepted the remaining personal-information withholding. Cabinet-confidence exclusions were confirmed following legal review; the commissioner could not inspect that excluded material.
Search objections did not establish missing records
The department tasked its Safety and Security and Prairie and Northern Region offices and searched personal drives, shared drives and handwritten records. Offices associated with the people identified by the requester were included.
The requester also pointed to a table entry that appeared to suggest further documents existed. Subject specialists explained why the entry did not require additional associated records in every case and confirmed that no additional relevant records existed here.
Transport Canada said on Aug. 25 that it would likely be able to implement the disclosure order. The final report does not establish subsequent compliance and provides Federal Court review rights.
