
5821-01013 — Correctional Service Canada and Parole Board of Canada
The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information from the institutional file of a named inmate, claiming numerous exemptions under the Access to Information Act. CSC withheld over 11,000 pages, disclosing only 149 in full, primarily citing subsection 19(1) for personal information. The Commissioner found that the records contained detailed, intimate, and sensitive personal information about the inmate and other individuals, satisfying the requirements of subsection 19(1). CSC demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to seek consent from the named inmate but not from others, providing valid reasons for the latter. The Commissioner also found that CSC was not obligated to undertake extensive searches to determine if the information was publicly available given its nature and volume. Furthermore, CSC's delegated authority considered the public interest in disclosure but concluded it did not clearly outweigh the invasion of privacy, providing a transparent explanation. The Commissioner concluded that none of the circumstances under subsection 19(2) for discretionary disclosure were met, and therefore, CSC was not required to exercise discretion. Consequently, the complaint was not well founded.
- 1Whether the information withheld by CSC constitutes personal information under subsection 19(1) ATIA
- 2Whether the information is about an individual
- 3Whether disclosing the information would identify that individual
- 4Whether the information falls under an exception to the definition of 'personal information' in the Privacy Act
- 5Whether CSC made reasonable efforts to seek consent for disclosure under paragraph 19(2)(a) ATIA
- 6Whether the information was publicly available under paragraph 19(2)(b) ATIA
- 7Whether the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighed the invasion of privacy under paragraph 19(2)(c) ATIA, as per section 8 of the Privacy Act
- 8Whether the open court principle applies to CSC or the Parole Board
- 9Whether the complainant was deprived of their section 2(b) Charter rights
- Application of s.19(1): Exemption upheld
- Duty to seek consent: Institution's efforts deemed reasonable
- Public availability search: No obligation for extensive search
- Public interest override: Institution's decision upheld
- Discretionary disclosure: No requirement to exercise discretion
- Overall complaint: Complaint not well founded
Complaint not well founded
The Commissioner found that the withheld information met the requirements of subsection 19(1) as personal information. CSC demonstrated that it appropriately considered the conditions for discretionary disclosure under subsection 19(2), including seeking consent and assessing public interest, and reasonably concluded that none of the conditions requiring disclosure were met. The Commissioner also noted that the open court principle does not apply to CSC or the Parole Board.
- s.13(1)(c) ATIA
- s.14(a) ATIA
- s.16(1)(c) ATIA
- s.16(1)(d) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.19(2) ATIA
- s.20(1)(b) ATIA
- s.21(1)(a) ATIA
- s.21(1)(b) ATIA
- s.23 ATIA
- s.68(a) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.8 Privacy Act
- s.8(2)(m)(i) Privacy Act
- s.2(b) Charter
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