Privy Council Office (Re), 2024 OIC 26
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for historical records related to the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1982-1983. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories. The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), citing a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the remaining records, with the exception of names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement her recommendations, stating that while a high percentage of information would be released, certain categories would remain withheld due to ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and consultations. The complaint was found to be well founded.
- 1Whether information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
- 2Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
- 3Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
- 4Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security for s.15(1) ATIA
- 5Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 6Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 7Whether disclosure of names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- 8Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- Application of s. 13(1): Exemption not upheld
- Application of s. 15(1): Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Full disclosure recommended
- Complaint status: Well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution refused to comply
The Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements for exemption under either subsection 13(1) (confidential information) or subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). Publicly available information and previous disclosures by Canada 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.30(1)(a) 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