I can't speak about the particular document, but I can tell you that from my experience, and especially with respect to an injury-based exemption, an ATIP office will assess the injury or the existence of an injury at the time it receives the access request. International relations evolve over time. There might be a situation where with respect to one country a few years ago we had very good relations, and perhaps these relations have evolved over timeāand here I'm not talking again about the particular DFAIT circumstances.
My point is that an answer that is given, or the existence of an injury found in the access act, may evolve over time where perhaps last year disclosing a particular document would not have caused injury, but circumstances on the ground have changed so that releasing the same document today would cause injury. So that might be an explanation of the situation.
Another explanation is that the act gives discretion with respect to section 15, so that even if there is a possibility of injury, there is discretion to disclose. That discretion is to be exercised at the time the access request is received. It might be possible for this, again, over time, to exercise the discretion differently. Frankly, if it weren't exercised differently or if it weren't really exercised each time an access request is received, probably this would be seen as an improper exercise of discretion.
I hope that answers your question.