BreachOfPrivacy
Decisions/Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — with AI-generated plain-language summaries for every ruling.

9 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Dec 28, 20225821-02721· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2022 OIC 55

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records detailing annual amounts paid due to sexual harassment or assault from 2009 to 2020. The RCMP explained that its general ledger does not record the nature of settlement claims, and they do not maintain a separate list of such payments. Therefore, the RCMP could only identify and disclose information related to publicly known class action settlements. The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the RCMP conducted a reasonable search given these limitations.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2022 OIC 55

Dec 28, 20225821-02721
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records detailing annual amounts paid due to sexual harassment or assault from 2009 to 2020. The RCMP explained that its general ledger does not record the nature of settlement claims, and they do not maintain a separate list of such payments. Therefore, the RCMP could only identify and disclose information related to publicly known class action settlements. The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the RCMP conducted a reasonable search given these limitations.

Key Issues
  • Whether the RCMP conducted a reasonable search for records.
  • The ability of the RCMP to search its general ledger for specific types of claims.
  • The existence of alternative methods for the RCMP to identify and locate responsive records.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Dec 15, 20225821-05041· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Health Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 52

Health Canada

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information from a non-clinical overview of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, citing exemptions for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)). The Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) found that the information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) at the time the request was processed. The OIC also concluded that the conditions under which Health Canada would be required to exercise discretion to release the information (subsections 20(5) and 20(6)) were not met. Therefore, the complaint was found not to be well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Health Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 52

Dec 15, 20225821-05041
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information from a non-clinical overview of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, citing exemptions for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)). The Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) found that the information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) at the time the request was processed. The OIC also concluded that the conditions under which Health Canada would be required to exercise discretion to release the information (subsections 20(5) and 20(6)) were not met. Therefore, the complaint was found not to be well founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether the withheld information qualifies as confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.
  • Whether the conditions for exercising discretion to release information under subsections 20(5) and 20(6) of the Access to Information Act were met.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Dec 12, 20225820-01102· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5820-01102 — Environment and Climate Change Canada

Environment and Climate Change Canada

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly excluded weather radar data, claiming it was available for purchase. ECCC demonstrated that both real-time and archived weather data are offered through a cost-recovery system. As the information was available for purchase, it was excluded from the application of the Access to Information Act.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5820-01102 — Environment and Climate Change Canada

Dec 12, 20225820-01102
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly excluded weather radar data, claiming it was available for purchase. ECCC demonstrated that both real-time and archived weather data are offered through a cost-recovery system. As the information was available for purchase, it was excluded from the application of the Access to Information Act.

Key Issues
  • Whether the exclusion of material available for purchase under paragraph 68(a) of the ATIA was properly applied.
  • Whether real-time data, which must be created after the request is made, falls under the scope of the ATIA.
  • Whether the cost-recovery system for accessing weather data renders the information 'available for purchase' under section 68(a).
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jul 13, 20225820-03525· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5820-03525 — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) improperly withheld information regarding the total remuneration of its highest-paid unionized employees. The CBC claimed exemptions under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position) for specific salary figures. The Information Commissioner found that disclosing these exact salaries could indeed harm the CBC's competitive position in a limited market, and that the CBC reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding the information. Therefore, the complaint was found not well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5820-03525 — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Jul 13, 20225820-03525
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) improperly withheld information regarding the total remuneration of its highest-paid unionized employees. The CBC claimed exemptions under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position) for specific salary figures. The Information Commissioner found that disclosing these exact salaries could indeed harm the CBC's competitive position in a limited market, and that the CBC reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding the information. Therefore, the complaint was found not well founded.

Key Issues
  • Proper application of paragraph 18(b) of the Access to Information Act
  • Reasonable expectation of harm to the institution's competitive position
  • Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution to withhold information
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jun 20, 20225821-03585· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5821-03585 — Canada Revenue Agency

Canada Revenue Agency

The complainant requested the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA withheld the total amount of CEWS received by each company, citing exemptions under the Access to Information Act (ATIA), including subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law). The OIC found that the withheld information was about identifiable taxpayers and was prepared for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and therefore properly withheld under subsection 24(1). Consequently, the complaint was found not well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5821-03585 — Canada Revenue Agency

Jun 20, 20225821-03585
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant requested the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA withheld the total amount of CEWS received by each company, citing exemptions under the Access to Information Act (ATIA), including subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law). The OIC found that the withheld information was about identifiable taxpayers and was prepared for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and therefore properly withheld under subsection 24(1). Consequently, the complaint was found not well founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether the CEWS database information was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA, citing section 241 of the Income Tax Act.
  • Whether the information was properly withheld under paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the ATIA.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jun 6, 20225821-01212· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Public Health Agency of Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 26

Public Health Agency of Canada

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence sent and received by its president during a specific week. PHAC cited a large volume of records (estimated at 30,000 pages) and the need for consultations as justification for the extensive extension. The Information Commissioner found that PHAC provided sufficient justification for the time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, making the complaint not well-founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Public Health Agency of Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 26

Jun 6, 20225821-01212
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence sent and received by its president during a specific week. PHAC cited a large volume of records (estimated at 30,000 pages) and the need for consultations as justification for the extensive extension. The Information Commissioner found that PHAC provided sufficient justification for the time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, making the complaint not well-founded.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension due to volume of records (ATIA s. 9(1)(a))
  • Reasonableness of time extension due to consultations (ATIA s. 9(1)(b))
  • Impact of request scope on institution's operations
  • Complainant's willingness to narrow the scope of the request
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Feb 14, 20225820-01156· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Re), 2022 OIC 12

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), in its role as administrator of the federal access to information system, failed to provide adequate support to government institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This, the complainant argued, impeded the right of access to government information. The investigation found that TBS engaged in reminding institutions of their obligations, clarified responsibilities, and addressed misinterpretations. Given TBS's limited authority over institutions' day-to-day operations, the Commissioner concluded that the support provided was adequate, and the complaint was not well-founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Re), 2022 OIC 12

Feb 14, 20225820-01156
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), in its role as administrator of the federal access to information system, failed to provide adequate support to government institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This, the complainant argued, impeded the right of access to government information. The investigation found that TBS engaged in reminding institutions of their obligations, clarified responsibilities, and addressed misinterpretations. Given TBS's limited authority over institutions' day-to-day operations, the Commissioner concluded that the support provided was adequate, and the complaint was not well-founded.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of TBS support to government institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Impact of TBS support on the right of access to government information.
  • Whether TBS's actions were contrary to the principles of openness and transparency.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Feb 3, 20225820-04070· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5820-04070 — Transport Canada and Department of Justice Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada and Global Affairs Canada and Canada Border Services Agency and Public Safety Canada

Transport Canada

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada's 510-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request concerned records on new testing and quarantine measures for non-essential international air travel. Transport Canada argued the extension was needed due to the large volume of records, the complexity of searches, necessary consultations with other government bodies, and third-party representations. The Commissioner found that the institution adequately demonstrated the necessity and reasonableness of the time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), and 9(1)(c) of the Act.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5820-04070 — Transport Canada and Department of Justice Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada and Global Affairs Canada and Canada Border Services Agency and Public Safety Canada

Feb 3, 20225820-04070
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada's 510-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request concerned records on new testing and quarantine measures for non-essential international air travel. Transport Canada argued the extension was needed due to the large volume of records, the complexity of searches, necessary consultations with other government bodies, and third-party representations. The Commissioner found that the institution adequately demonstrated the necessity and reasonableness of the time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), and 9(1)(c) of the Act.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) due to volume of records
  • Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) due to consultations
  • Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(c) due to third-party consultations
  • Proper notification of time extension
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jan 28, 20223217-02579· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

3217-02579 — National Defence

National Defence

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to conduct a complete search for the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan. DND tasked the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with retrieving the records, but the RCN reported them as lost. Despite a "Summary Investigation" by DND, the circumstances of the loss could not be determined. Ultimately, the Information Commissioner found that DND conducted reasonable searches and could not conclude that responsive records could reasonably be found, rendering the complaint not well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

3217-02579 — National Defence

Jan 28, 20223217-02579
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to conduct a complete search for the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan. DND tasked the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with retrieving the records, but the RCN reported them as lost. Despite a "Summary Investigation" by DND, the circumstances of the loss could not be determined. Ultimately, the Information Commissioner found that DND conducted reasonable searches and could not conclude that responsive records could reasonably be found, rendering the complaint not well founded.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of the search conducted by National Defence
  • Determination of the loss of records
  • Impact of records management deficiencies on the right of access