
Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 OIC 28
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 16(2) and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records concerning a meeting between Clerk John Hannaford and the official languages commissioner. The Commissioner found that PCO appropriately applied subsection 16(2) to a phone number, concluding that its disclosure could reasonably facilitate the commission of an offence and that PCO's exercise of discretion was reasonable. However, the Commissioner determined that PCO improperly applied subsection 19(1) to a signature and two initials, as PCO failed to demonstrate why this information, used in the performance of official duties, was not excluded from the definition of personal information by paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner concurred with this assessment. Despite being given an opportunity to release the information informally, PCO did not respond. The Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the signature and initials, which PCO ultimately agreed to do after obtaining consent from the individuals involved, while still maintaining its disagreement with the Commissioner's position.
- 1Whether the disclosure of a phone number could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under s.16(2) ATIA
- 2Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion in applying s.16(2) ATIA
- 3Whether a signature and initials on official documents constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
- 4Whether the signature and initials are excluded from the definition of personal information by paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act
- 5Whether the institution sufficiently justified the application of s.19(1) ATIA
- s.16(2) law enforcement: Exemption upheld for phone number
- s.19(1) personal information: Exemption not upheld for signature and initials
- Disclosure of records: Signature and initials ordered disclosed
Complaint well founded in part — disclosure ordered for some information
The Commissioner found that PCO failed to justify the application of subsection 19(1) to a signature and initials, as this information, used in official duties, should have been considered under the exception in paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. However, the application of subsection 16(2) to a phone number was deemed appropriate due to the potential for facilitating an offence and the reasonable exercise of discretion by PCO.
The Clerk of the Privy Council was ordered to disclose the information previously withheld under subsection 19(1) in its entirety and provide a supplementary release to the complainant.
- s.16(2) ATIA
- s.19(1) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.3(j) Privacy 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) (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