Investigation into the Canada Revenue Agency’s application of paragraph 22(1)(b) to refuse access to personal information
The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly denied access to personal information related to five grievances, relying on exceptions in subsection 12(1), paragraph 22(1)(b), and section 26 of the Privacy Act. The OPC found that while the CRA conducted reasonable searches, it failed to substantiate its use of some exemptions, particularly paragraph 22(1)(b). The CRA did not demonstrate a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm, instead relying on general assertions. The OPC concluded that the complainant did not receive all entitled personal information and found the complaint well-founded. The OPC recommended the CRA reassess its reliance on paragraph 22(1)(b) and disclose more information. However, the CRA maintained its position, leading the OPC to consider the complaint unresolved.
- 1Whether the Canada Revenue Agency conducted reasonable searches for responsive records
- 2Whether the Canada Revenue Agency properly applied subsection 12(1) of the Privacy Act to withhold information
- 3Whether the Canada Revenue Agency properly applied paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act to withhold information
- 4Whether the Canada Revenue Agency properly applied section 26 of the Privacy Act to withhold information
- 5Whether the Canada Revenue Agency demonstrated a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm under paragraph 22(1)(b)
- 6Whether general assertions of harm are sufficient to justify withholding information under paragraph 22(1)(b)
- 7Whether the mere fact of an ongoing investigation meets the threshold for harm under paragraph 22(1)(b)
- 8Whether the potential for strategic advantage is sufficient to justify withholding information under paragraph 22(1)(b)
- 9Whether professional expertise alone is sufficient to substantiate an exemption claim under paragraph 22(1)(b)
- 10Whether a case-by-case assessment is required for the application of paragraph 22(1)(b)
- Adequacy of search: Search found reasonable
- s.22(1)(b) personal information: Exemption not substantiated
- s.12(1) personal information: Exemption not substantiated
- s.26 personal information: Exemption not substantiated
- Disclosure of records: More information recommended for disclosure
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded but unresolved
Complaint well-founded — unresolved
The OPC found the complaint well-founded because the CRA failed to substantiate its use of paragraph 22(1)(b) by not demonstrating a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm. The complaint remains unresolved as the CRA maintained its position despite the OPC's recommendation.
The OPC recommended that the Canada Revenue Agency reassess its reliance on paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act and disclose as much information as possible.
- s.12(1) Privacy Act
- s.22(1)(b) Privacy Act
- s.26 Privacy Act
This summary is informational only and not 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