Privy Council Office (Re), 2024 OIC 30
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1989, citing subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, PCO agreed to cease reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) and committed to disclosing much 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 demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), noting a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the contested information. However, PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendation, stating it would release a high percentage of the information after further interdepartmental consultations, but not the entirety.
- 1Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
- 2Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
- 3Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
- 4Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to distribution markings of classified reports
- 5Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees
- 6Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
- 7Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA
- 8Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.15(1) ATIA
- Application of s. 21(1)(b): Institution ceased reliance
- Application of s. 13(1): Exemption not upheld
- Application of s. 15(1): Exemption not upheld
- Disclosure of records: Full disclosure recommended
- Implementation of recommendation: Institution refused full implementation
Complaint well founded — disclosure recommended, but institution refused to implement
The Commissioner found that PCO did not 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 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 within 60 business days.
- s.13(1) ATIA
- s.15(1) ATIA
- s.21(1)(b) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.13(2) 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