Decisions

The Commissioner found that the interest in withholding the draft EIS on the basis of article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information and upheld daa's reliance on the exception in respect of certain portions of the draft EIS. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the remaining portion of the draft EIS outweighed the interest served by withholding it and accordingly directed release of that remaining portion

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that no further relevant environmental information was held by or for the EPA following its carrying out of adequate searches and, thus, article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied

The Commissioner found that the Department was not justified in its decision refusing access to the requested information on the basis that it was not environmental information. He found that the requested information was environmental information pursuant to article 3(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner annulled the Department’s decision in full, and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

In affirming daa's decision, the Commissioner found that it had, at this point in time, taken adequate steps to search for and provide the appellant with access to the environmental information falling within the scope of parts A and C of the request that is held by or for daa. He went on to find that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied and that no further environmental information falling within the scope of parts A and C the request is held by or for the daa at this time.

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in not providing access to certain information because it did not hold the information. He found that refusal to provide access to certain other information was not justified on the ground of articles 8(a)(iv) or 9(1)(c) and he required the Department to release it

The Commissioner found that the Council's refusal of access to the correspondence regarding the RSA reports for the KCAS under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations was not justified. Accordingly, he required the Council to disclose the correspondence to the appellant

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found that article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations applied to certain excerpts in two of the records at issue. He found that the Department’s decision to refuse access to the remaining records was not justified and therefore directed the release of the information.

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner found that the Department’s decision to refuse access to the records sought was not justified and therefore directed the release of the information.

The Commissioner found that CRG is a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1)(b) of the public authority definition. He annulled CRG's decision and directed that a fresh decision-making process be undertaken in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found that article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations applied to the majority of the records at issue. He found that the Department's decision to refuse access to certain records or parts thereof was not justified and directed the release of the information contained therein.