5820-00631 — Privy Council Office
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) (national security, defence) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act concerning historical Canadian intelligence assessments. The OIC found that PCO was justified in withholding information under subsection 19(1). However, PCO failed to demonstrate how the release of distribution markings, names of former Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, a distribution list of allies, information on nuclear development programs, and technology transfer details would cause a reasonable expectation of harm under subsection 15(1). The Commissioner noted that similar information had been previously released by PCO and other institutions, discrediting PCO's claims of harm. Furthermore, the Commissioner was not satisfied that PCO properly exercised its discretion in deciding against disclosure. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety, but PCO indicated it would not implement the order.
- 1Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
- 2Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to distribution markings
- 3Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to names of CSE employees
- 4Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to a distribution list of allies
- 5Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on nuclear development programs
- 6Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on technology transfer
- 7Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on a region-based working group
- 8Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1)
- s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld
- s.15(1) national security: Exemption not justified
- Harm test: Institution failed to demonstrate harm
- Discretionary disclosure: Institution failed to properly exercise discretion
- Disclosure of records: Records ordered disclosed
- Compliance with order: Institution indicated non-compliance
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution refused to comply
The Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm for the information withheld under subsection 15(1), citing previous public disclosures of similar information by PCO and other federal institutions. PCO also failed to properly exercise its discretion in deciding against disclosure. While PCO was justified in applying s.19(1), the s.15(1) claims were not substantiated.
The Clerk of the Privy Council was ordered to disclose the responsive records withheld under subsection 15(1) in their entirety.
- s.15(1) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.36.1(1) ATIA
- s.37(4) ATIA
- s.35(2)(b) ATIA
- s.37(1)(c) ATIA
- s.43 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