Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request regarding COVID-19 vaccination mandate accommodations within the statutory time limits. The investigation found that DND missed its extended deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. The Commissioner ordered DND to complete the retrieval of all responsive records and provide a response to the request. DND indicated it would comply with the order.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Deemed refusal of access due to delay
• Responsibility of offices of primary interest for record retrieval
• Undermining of the access to information system credibility

The complainant alleged that National Defence improperly withheld information concerning the Intelligence Advisory Committee under exemptions related to international affairs/national security (subsection 15(1)) and personal information (subsection 19(1)). While the institution disclosed some information during the investigation, the Information Commissioner found that the remaining withheld information did not meet the requirements of subsection 15(1), as the potential harm from disclosure was not apparent. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but National Defence disagreed and chose not to implement the recommendation.

• Whether withheld information meets the criteria for exemption under subsection 15(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosing the remaining information.
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for "School Narratives" and supporting documents. CIRNAC officials identified that records existed but refused to process them, citing confidentiality and a lengthy processing time. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering CIRNAC to retrieve and process all responsive records and provide a new response to the request.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Institution's refusal to process identified records
• Complainant's right of access to records under the control of a government institution

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a selection process for Steward/Command Master Sailor. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigation found that not all relevant offices were tasked and the search criteria were unclear. National Defence was ordered to complete the retrieval of all responsive records and provide a new response to the access request.

• Reasonable search
• Completeness of search
• Clarity of tasking for record retrieval

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Mental Health Counselling benefit, including a "detailed review" and related proposals and reviews. ISC initially claimed the "detailed review" was verbal and no records existed. However, further investigation revealed ISC had not conducted an adequate search, and a subsequent search located at least 170 pages of responsive documents. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered ISC to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a new response to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Existence of records for "detailed review" mentioned in an internal briefing note
• Scope and completeness of the search efforts

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld records related to Dukoral under various ATIA exemptions, including personal information, third-party commercial information, and solicitor-client privilege. While some exemptions like solicitor-client privilege were upheld, the Commissioner found that Health Canada did not sufficiently demonstrate that information withheld under commercial and advice/recommendations exemptions met the required criteria. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose specific information previously withheld.

• Confidential third-party commercial, financial, scientific or technical information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c))
• Advice or recommendations (s. 21(1)(a))
• Solicitor-client privilege (s. 23)

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the Wood Mountain (Lakota) First Nation land claim. While CIRNAC initially provided records from 2017 onwards, OIC investigation and research revealed potential missing records from 2009 to 2016. Following further searches prompted by the OIC, CIRNAC located additional records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CIRNAC to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a new response to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Identification and location of all records responsive to the access request
• Completeness of the records provided to the complainant

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records concerning the Laval River slope stabilization project. The Information Commissioner found that DFO failed to justify withholding information under exemptions related to confidential government information (s. 13(1)(c)) and financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner upheld the withholding of personal information under s. 19(1). DFO was ordered to release the information withheld under s. 13(1)(c) and s. 20(1)(c), and indicated its intention to comply.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body (s. 13(1)(c) ATIA)
• Whether information constituted personal information (s. 19(1) ATIA)
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause a material financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)

The complainant requested a copy of an agreement between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and the Musqueam Indian Band. The VFPA withheld the entire agreement, citing exemptions related to competitive position and confidential third-party information. The Information Commissioner found that the VFPA did not adequately justify withholding the information under the competitive position exemption and failed to reasonably exercise its discretion. The Commissioner also found that the information did not meet the criteria for the confidential third-party information exemption. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether the agreement between VFPA and Musqueam Indian Band qualified for exemption under subsection 18(b) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information under subsection 18(b) ATIA.
• Whether the agreement contained information qualifying for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party as required by paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Global Affairs Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to international education roundtables in 2010 and Canada's decision not to endorse the "London Statement." The investigation found that additional responsive records should have existed but were not preserved due to inadvertence and poor information management practices. Global Affairs conducted further searches and found additional records. The Commissioner ordered Global Affairs to provide the newly found records and recommended improvements to information management practices.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Proper preservation and retention of records
• Identification and disclosure of responsive records

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld dates related to an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) under exemptions for confidential third-party commercial information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) and potential financial impact on a third party (paragraph 20(1)(c)). The Information Commissioner found that the dates did not meet the criteria for either exemption, as they were considered administrative details rather than commercial information and the expectation of financial harm was too speculative. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the dates.

• Whether the dates of correspondence are confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the dates could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• The interpretation of 'commercial information' in light of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.
• The requirement for a reasonable expectation of probable harm to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to specific First Nations in British Columbia between 1871 and 1960. During the OIC investigation, DFO conducted a second search and retrieved approximately 7000 additional pages of responsive records. The Information Commissioner found the initial search to be unreasonable but was satisfied after the second search.

• Reasonable search
• Scope of the request

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld portions of a hazardous occurrence investigation report concerning the death of a CN employee, citing personal information (subsection 19(1)) and confidential third-party commercial/technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that certain information, including train and track numbers and details in witness statements, did not meet the criteria for exemption under subsection 19(1). The Commissioner also found that Transport Canada did not adequately demonstrate that the information met the four requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b). Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose specific withheld information.

• Whether certain information in the investigation report qualified as personal information under subsection 19(1) ATIA, considering the serious possibility of identification.
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under subsection 19(2) ATIA.
• Whether certain information qualified as confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether information was objectively confidential, originated in a reasonable expectation of confidence, and its disclosure was in the public interest.

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) improperly withheld information related to a contract under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that NRCan and the third party did not demonstrate that all the requirements for these exemptions were met for most of the withheld information. The Commissioner recommended disclosing all information except for a void cheque and the unit prices and quantities. NRCan disclosed some additional information but not all that was recommended, leading to the complaint being found well-founded.

• Whether information was confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether disclosing information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution met the requirements of the exemptions claimed.
• Whether the institution implemented the Commissioner's recommendation.

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct reasonable searches for records related to specific contracts under the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that National Defence had not attempted to retrieve records from a third-party contractor and had not searched all likely locations, such as a cloud-based platform. Consequently, the OIC ordered National Defence to conduct further searches, process any responsive records found, and provide updated responses to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of search efforts
• Definition of 'control' over records
• Failure to retrieve records from third-party contractor
• Deficiencies in records management