ACCESS TO INFORMATION |
Promaxis Systems Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)
T-1755-00
2002 FCT 921, MacKay J.
30/8/02
10 pp.
Application, under Access to Information Act, s. 44, for judicial review of Minister of Public Works and Government Services' decision to release certain information originally submitted by applicant in request for proposal concerning specified contracts concluded between Minister, applicant-- Relevant contract involving technical Publications Manage-ment Services for Aircraft Maintenance Support Equipment-- Applicant concerned disclosure of information to third party, likely potential competitor, would be detrimental to competitive position, could severely damage business-- Applicant seeking declaration information in question, total cost figures included in its proposal for contracts, should be exempt from disclosure under Act, s. 20(1)(b), (c), (d)-- Application dismissed--In accord with Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, even if principal issue now moot, Court should nevertheless determine matter on facts adduced--Act, s. 20(1)(b) (confidentiality)-- Information herein financial in nature, supplied by applicant, treated by it in confidential manner consistently--However, as stated in Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Department of Secretary of State) (1994), 79 F.T.R. 42 (F.C.T.D.), one must keep in mind proposals put together for purpose of obtaining government contract, with payment to come from public funds, so, when would-be contractor sets out to win government contract, should not expect terms upon which he is prepared to contract, including capacities his firm brings to task, to be kept fully insulated from disclosure obligations of Government of Canada as part of its accountability--For reasons of public policy, information not confidential informa-tion within meaning of Act, s. 20(1)(b), however may have been considered, treated by applicant--Act, s. 20(1)(c) (probable harm)--Applicant has not established, on balance of probabilities, disclosure of information would result in "reasonable expectation of probable harm"--Insufficient evidence to warrant conclusion information in question should be withheld from release--Even if labour cost, hourly wage figures could be calculated by knowledgeable people from total cost proposed, that does not in itself demonstrate that information ought not be disclosed--Act, s. 20(1)(d) (interfering with competition)--Evidence not indicating probable harm from interference with future negotiations between applicant, respondent or between applicant, its staff --Vague concerns about future negotiations between parties or about employee relations with management not sufficient for purposes of meeting requirements of Act, s. 20(1)(d)-- Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, ss. 20(1)(b), (c), (d), 44.