3217-00059 — Privy Council Office
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1981 under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially claimed subsection 19(1) as well, but this was not pursued as the OIC found it was not applied to the contested information. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose much of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits by foreign intelligence community members, dissemination markings of classified reports, names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1) for the remaining withheld information, noting that similar information had been previously released by PCO and allied countries without apparent harm. The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded and recommended disclosure of the information. PCO, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, citing ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and the need for further consultations.
- 1Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
- 2Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
- 3Whether the information was obtained from a specified government body in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
- 4Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
- 5Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 6Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
- 7Whether disclosure of distribution markings could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 8Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
- 9Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 10Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
- 11Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 12Whether PCO's arguments for harm under s.15(1) were speculative or demonstrated a reasonable expectation of probable harm
- Application of s.19(1): Exemption not pursued
- Disclosure during investigation: Partial disclosure made
- s.13(1) international affairs: Exemption not justified
- s.15(1) international affairs: Exemption not justified
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
- Recommendation implementation: Institution refused to implement
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution refused to comply
The Commissioner found that PCO did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of subsections 13(1) or 15(1). Publicly available information and previous disclosures by PCO and allied countries contradicted PCO's claims of confidentiality and potential harm.
The Commissioner recommended that the Privy Council Office 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.
- s.13(1) ATIA
- s.15(1) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) 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