Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 OIC 28
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information related to a meeting, citing exemptions under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that PCO failed to demonstrate that a signature and two initials, withheld under subsection 19(1), met the requirements of the exemption, particularly considering they related to official duties and transparency. Although PCO initially applied subsection 16(2) to a phone number, the OIC concluded this exemption was met. However, the OIC ordered PCO to disclose the information withheld under subsection 19(1).
- Application of subsection 16(2) to a phone number
- Application of subsection 19(1) to signatures and initials
- Whether signatures/initials used for official duties are excluded from the definition of personal information under paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act
- Reasonableness of the institution's exercise of discretion to withhold information
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered for information withheld under subsection 19(1)
The OIC found that the Privy Council Office did not properly apply subsection 19(1) to withhold a signature and two initials, as this information related to official duties and transparency, and was not considered personal information under paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. The OIC was not convinced that PCO had sufficiently justified the withholding or assessed the reasonable expectation of privacy in this context. The OIC also found that PCO met the requirements for withholding a phone number under subsection 16(2) and reasonably exercised its discretion.
AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
The Information Commissioner ordered the Privy Council Office to disclose the information withheld under subsection 19(1).
- s.16(2) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- para 3(j) Privacy Act
This is an informational summary only and does not constitute legal advice.