Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5820-00685 — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Organization: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards containing cost recovery information for immigration application programs from 2013-2019. During the investigation, IRCC also invoked section 23 for the entire records. The Commissioner found that the information did not constitute advice or recommendations under paragraph 21(1)(a), as it appeared to be purely factual and devoid of specific advice. Furthermore, IRCC failed to demonstrate that the records were prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for section 23. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that neither exemption applied. Although an order to release the records was initially intended, IRCC released the information in full before the order was issued, rendering it unnecessary.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards constitute "advice or recommendations" under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the information was created by or for a government institution or Minister for the purpose of s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  3. 3Whether the information is subject to solicitor-client privilege under s.23 ATIA
  4. 4Whether the information is subject to litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
  5. 5Whether the information was prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation for s.23 ATIA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • s.21(1)(a) advice/recommendations: Exemption not applicable
  • s.23 solicitor-client privilege: Exemption not applicable
  • Disclosure of records: Records released in full
Outcome

Complaint well founded — records released

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that the records were factual in nature and did not contain advice or recommendations as required by s.21(1)(a). Additionally, IRCC failed to establish that the records were prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation, which is a prerequisite for applying s.23.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

The institution released the records in their entirety.

Statutes considered
  • s.21(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.23 ATIA
  • s.37(1) ATIA

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