Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Privy Council Office (Re), 2021 OIC 10

Organization: Privy Council OfficeComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld the names of employees within the Prime Minister's Office under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to the Minister of Revenue's announcement regarding audits of registered charities for political activities. The OIC's investigation focused on the application of subsection 19(1) to the names of exempt staff appearing in email chains. PCO argued that the information was personal information, citing a Supreme Court decision that clarified information about exempt staff is personal information. The OIC agreed that the names, in context, revealed more than just their identity and title, thus meeting the requirements for personal information and not falling under the exceptions in the Privacy Act. Furthermore, the OIC found that none of the circumstances under subsection 19(2) for discretionary disclosure existed, as consent was not given, and the specific context of their involvement was not publicly available. Therefore, the OIC concluded that the complaint was not well founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the names of employees within the Prime Minister's Office constitute 'personal information' under s.19(1) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the information falls under exceptions to the definition of 'personal information' in paragraphs 3(j) to 3(m) of the Privacy Act
  3. 3Whether the information falls under the exception in paragraph 3(j.1) of the Privacy Act for ministerial advisers or staff members
  4. 4Whether the individuals consented to the release of their personal information under s.19(2)(a) ATIA
  5. 5Whether the information was publicly available under s.19(2)(b) ATIA
  6. 6Whether disclosure would be consistent with section 8 of the Privacy Act under s.19(2)(c) ATIA
  7. 7Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose the information under s.19(2) ATIA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Application of s.19(1): Names of exempt staff are personal information
  • s.19(2) discretionary disclosure: No grounds for disclosure found
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint not well founded
Outcome

Complaint not well founded

Reasoning

The OIC found that the names of the exempt staff, in the context of the email chains, constituted personal information under s.19(1) ATIA and did not fall under any exceptions to the definition of personal information. Additionally, none of the conditions for discretionary disclosure under s.19(2) ATIA were met, as consent was not obtained, and the specific context of their involvement was not publicly available.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.19(1) ATIA
  • s.19(2) ATIA
  • s.3(j) Privacy Act
  • s.3(j.1) Privacy Act
  • s.3(m) Privacy Act
  • s.8 Privacy Act

This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable

Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.

Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).

Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.

Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.

Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.

Upgrade to Pro