Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 CI 50
An anonymous applicant complained that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under multiple sections of the Access to Information Act (ATIA) in response to a request for records concerning the "Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) Mandate and Membership." During the investigation, PCO failed to provide any representations to justify its application of exemptions, despite multiple requests from the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC). The Commissioner found that PCO did not meet the burden of proof for exemptions under subsections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1), 16(2), 18, and 24(1), citing reasons such as the Canadian origin of information, prior disclosures, inconsistent redactions, the age of the records, and the absence of justification. While subsection 19(1) was upheld for certain personal information, the Commissioner found no basis for PCO to exercise discretion to release it. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded the complaint was well founded and ordered PCO to fully disclose all responsive records improperly withheld. PCO subsequently gave notice that it would not fully implement the order and attempted to provide late submissions, but the Commissioner rejected these new arguments and maintained the original order.
- 1Whether s.13(1) applied to Canadian-authored analysis concerning foreign governments or international events
- 2Whether s.13(1) applied given the absence of representations from PCO
- 3Whether s.15(1) applied given prior disclosures of identical information by other federal institutions
- 4Whether s.15(1) applied to distribution markings given prior disclosures by PCO and other departments
- 5Whether s.15(1) applied given inconsistent redactions of the same document within the records
- 6Whether s.15(1) applied given the absence of representations from PCO explaining the nature of harm
- 7Whether s.16(1)(a) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
- 8Whether s.16(1)(b) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
- 9Whether s.16(1)(c) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
- 10Whether s.16(1)(d) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
- 11Whether s.16(2) applied given the decades-old nature of the information and the absence of representations explaining how it could facilitate an offence today
- 12Whether s.18(a) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
- 13Whether s.18(b) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
- 14Whether s.18(c) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
- 15Whether s.18(d) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
- 16Whether s.19(1) applied to personal information of other individuals
- 17Whether PCO properly exercised discretion under s.19(2) to release personal information
- 18Whether s.24(1) applied to the acronym "CSIS" given its public nature and prior disclosures
- 19Whether s.24(1) applied to names of CSIS employees without representations explaining covert status or continued protection
- 20Whether PCO's submissions made after the initial report should be considered
- Application of exemptions: Exemptions not justified
- Burden of proof: Institution failed to meet burden
- s.19(1) personal information: Exemption upheld for certain information
- Discretion to disclose: No basis for institution to exercise discretion
- Disclosure of records: Full disclosure ordered
- Implementation of order: Institution's late submissions rejected
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Privy Council Office failed to provide representations to justify the application of most exemptions during the investigation, and the Commissioner found that the institution did not meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the claimed exemptions or that harm could reasonably be expected from its disclosure. The Commissioner also rejected PCO's attempt to provide new arguments after the initial report was issued.
The Commissioner ordered the Clerk of the Privy Council to disclose all remaining responsive records that were improperly withheld under subsections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1), 16(2), 18, and 24(1) in their entirety, and to provide a new response within 36 business days.
- s.13(1) ATIA
- s.15(1) ATIA
- s.16(1) ATIA
- s.16(2) ATIA
- s.18 ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.24(1) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.36.1(1) ATIA
- s.37(1) ATIA
- s.37(1)(c) ATIA
- s.37(4) ATIA
- s.43 ATIA
- s.35(2)(b) ATIA
- s.19(2) ATIA
- s.3(j) Privacy Act
- s.3(k) Privacy Act
- s.3(l) Privacy Act
- s.3(m) Privacy Act
- s.8 Privacy Act
- s.18 CSIS Act
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) (659 of 1,639), Nova Scotia (50 of 473), Quebec (10 of 7,094), Prince Edward Island (4 of 281), Yukon (2 of 76).
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