Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)3217-00058
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

Privy Council Office (Re), 2024 OIC 24

Organization: Privy Council OfficeComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979 under subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially withdrew its reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) as the records were over 20 years old. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information, but continued to withhold specific categories under subsections 13(1) and 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence that the information was obtained in confidence for subsection 13(1) to apply, and that PCO's arguments for harm under subsection 15(1) were speculative and contradicted by public disclosures and previous releases. The Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either exemption and recommended disclosure. PCO refused to implement the Commissioner's recommendations, stating it would disclose a high percentage of information but not all, and would conduct further consultations.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
  2. 2Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
  3. 3Whether the information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
  4. 4Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
  5. 5Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding titles of Liaison Officers
  6. 6Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
  7. 7Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding distribution markings
  8. 8Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
  9. 9Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding names of CSE employees
  10. 10Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain intelligence report titles
  11. 11Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding intelligence report titles
  12. 12Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.13(1) ATIA
  13. 13Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1) ATIA
  14. 14Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (account of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • s.21(1)(b) exemption: Exemption withdrawn by institution
  • Disclosure of records: Most records disclosed by institution
  • s.13(1) exemption: Exemption not justified
  • s.15(1) exemption: Exemption not justified
  • Commissioner's recommendation: Recommendation to disclose not implemented
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure recommended, but institution refused to comply

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of subsections 13(1) and 15(1). PCO did not provide evidence that the information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1), and its arguments for harm under s.15(1) were speculative and contradicted by previous public disclosures and releases by allied countries.

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

The Commissioner recommended that the Clerk of the Privy Council disclose the records in their entirety, with the exception of the names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, and provide a new response to the request within 60 business days.

Statutes considered
  • s.13(1) ATIA
  • s.15(1) ATIA
  • s.21(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.43 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