Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 6 third party which might flow from disclosure”.10 Further, a distinction must be drawn between actual contractual negotiations and the daily business operations of a third party.11 IPC Findings In Review Report 007-2015, the Commissioner considered subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of FOIP. An applicant had made an access to information request to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for the Statement of Work attached to Information Technology Consulting Services Agreement ITO-12023. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that it was withholding portions of the Statement of Work pursuant to several provisions of FOIP including subsections 19(1)(b) and (c). For subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP, the Commissioner found that the estimated hours, hourly rate, and estimated cost per consultant was the financial and commercial information of the third party. However, the Commissioner found that the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant were not supplied by the third party because they were part of the contract between Central Services and the third party and the result of negotiation between the parties. As all three parts of the test were not met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP did not apply and recommended the information be released. For subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP, Central Services and the third party asserted that releasing the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant would result in a competitor having the ability to provide a lower rate for future contracts, which would cause the third party to experience a competitive disadvantage. However, neither Central Services nor the third party provided anything further to support this assertion. The Commissioner also stated that the winning contractor would have access to the internal cost estimates in question as it is part of the current contract and that keeping these figures from the public, including other future bidders, would jeopardize competitive bidding processes. The Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP was also not properly applied by Central Services. In Review Report 031-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. An applicant had made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government 10 Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Department of the Secretary of State), (April 27, 1994), T-1587-93, T1588-93 (F.C.T.D.) at [10]. 11 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of External Affairs) (T.D.), [1990] 3 FC 665, 1990 CanLII 7951 (FC) at [24].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==