5820-01454 — Canadian Security Intelligence Service
The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) failed to sufficiently identify redacted portions of records and the basis for withholding information in response to an access request for historical information about Warren Hart. CSIS used negative (white) redactions and cited exemptions only in the response letter, arguing that marking redactions on the records could cause harm. The Information Commissioner found that CSIS did not provide a cogent explanation for how clearly marked redactions and exemptions would reveal protected information. The Commissioner concluded that CSIS failed to meet its obligations regarding severance and the duty to assist. CSIS was recommended to provide a new response with clearly identified redactions and specific exemption provisions, and to cease using negative redactions and citing exemptions only in response letters. CSIS agreed to implement these recommendations.
- 1Whether CSIS sufficiently identified redacted portions of records
- 2Whether CSIS sufficiently identified the basis for withholding information
- 3Whether the use of negative (white) redactions by CSIS was appropriate
- 4Whether citing exemptions only in response letters by CSIS was appropriate
- 5Whether CSIS's practice contravened the duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
- 6Whether CSIS's practice contravened the severance requirement under section 25 ATIA
- 7Whether clearly marking redactions and exemptions on records would reveal protected information or cause harm
- Severance / Duty to Assist: CSIS failed to meet obligations
- Redaction method: Negative redactions deemed inappropriate
- Exemption citation: Citing exemptions only in letter deemed inappropriate
- New response: New response with proper redactions and exemptions recommended
- Implementation of recommendations: CSIS agreed to implement recommendations
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
CSIS failed to provide a cogent explanation for how clearly marked redactions and exemptions on the records would reveal protected information or cause harm. This failure meant CSIS did not meet its obligations under the Act regarding severance and the duty to assist.
The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was recommended to provide a new response to the complainant that clearly identifies which portions of the records are withheld and cites, for each portion, the specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act under which they are redacted; cease the use of negative (white) redactions; and cease routinely citing the specific exemptions only in response letters.
- s.2(2)(a) ATIA
- s.4(2.1) ATIA
- s.10(1) ATIA
- s.25 ATIA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
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