The top court in Newfoundland and Labrador has rejected an appeal by a national office supplies company that could have set a precedent restricting what residents of the province are allowed to know about how their tax dollars are being spent.

The case revolved around a tussle between two companies over provincial access-to-information laws.

Staples Advantage won the contract four years ago to provide office supplies to Memorial University.

A competitor, Dicks and Company, used open-records laws to request details about office supplies MUN purchased from Staples both under the winning tender contract, and outside the contract.

Staples went to court to block the release of that data.

The company argued disclosing that information would be harmful to its competitive position, and would cause it significant financial loss.

Those arguments fell under a more restrictive definition of commercially-sensitive information brought in under Bill 29.

The appeal by Staples revolved around how access-to-information laws apply to the contract to provide office supplies to Memorial University. (CBC)

While the information in question involved pricing details about how much the university was paying for items like pens, paper clips and highlighters, the case could have set a precedent over public access to spending details about bigger ticket bills being footed by taxpayers.

The three-judge Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court of Appeal panel rejected the arguments made by Staples, and upheld a lower-court decision.

"Disclosure of MUN's usage information simply puts prospective bidders on a more equal footing," Justice Lois Hoegg wrote in the unanimous Court of Appeal decision.

"This is how it should be, for it ultimately makes MUN, as a public institution, more accountable in its expenditure of public monies."

This is how it should be, for it ultimately makes MUN, as a public institution, more accountable in its expenditure of public monies. - Justice Lois Hoegg

Last year, the provincial government declined to say whether Bill 29 was meant to exclude pricing information like this from public disclosure.

But since then, the tighter rules over the release of commercially-sensitive information brought in by Bill 29 have been rolled back.

That happened in the wake of recommendations made by the Clyde Wells-led review of access to information.