Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld records concerning the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The withheld information was claimed to be exempt under provisions related to personal information, advice and recommendations, and litigation privilege. The Information Commissioner found that while some information initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) should have been disclosed, it was released during the investigation. The Commissioner was satisfied that the remaining withheld information met the criteria for the other exemptions claimed. The complaint was ultimately found to be well-founded.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) (personal information).
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations).
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 23 (litigation privilege).
• Whether the institution properly excluded records deemed not relevant based on the complainant's prior agreement.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to correspondence with a third party, citing personal information and third-party business and financial information exemptions. DFO and the third party conceded that two exemptions were improperly applied, and the Information Commissioner found that the remaining exemption for confidential third-party information was not met. The Commissioner ordered DFO to disclose the information.

• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Application of paragraphs 20(1)(a) (trade secrets) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on third party)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Confidentiality criteria for paragraph 20(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning the fee schedule or dispersal of payments to provinces and territories under a specific section of the Budget Implementation Act. During the OIC's investigation, PHAC re-searched and found approximately 104 additional responsive pages. The Information Commissioner concluded the initial search was not reasonable but was satisfied after the additional retrieval.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by PHAC
• PHAC's obligation to identify and locate all responsive records

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information from rail industry workplace fatality investigation reports under several Access to Information Act exemptions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose information that did not meet the exemption criteria and to re-exercise its discretion where it had not been adequately demonstrated. ESDC indicated it would implement the order.

• Application of exemption 16(1)(c) to investigation reports
• Definition and application of personal information exemption 19(1) to deceased individuals
• Justification for withholding third-party commercial/technical information under 20(1)(b)
• Assessment of financial impact and competitive harm to third parties under 20(1)(c)

The complainant alleged the National Capital Commission (NCC) improperly withheld records concerning renovation projects at Rideau Hall under various provisions of the Access to Information Act. While the NCC initially cited exemptions related to facilitating offences and negotiations, the investigation focused on the personal information exemption. The NCC eventually disclosed some information it had withheld, but the Commissioner found that the remaining personal information, including an employee's name, title, and contact details, did not meet the exemption criteria. Furthermore, the NCC failed to reasonably exercise its discretion regarding publicly available personal information. The Commissioner ordered the NCC to disclose the information and to properly exercise its discretion.

• Whether the NCC properly applied the personal information exemption (subsection 19(1)) to employee contact information.
• Whether the NCC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose publicly available personal information.
• Whether certain information qualified as personal information under subsection 19(1) or was excluded under paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act.

The complainant alleged that CMHC improperly withheld records concerning the Canada Mortgage Bonds (CMB) and National Housing Act Mortgage-Backed Securities (NHA MBS) programs, citing several exemptions including government and third-party financial information. While CMHC justified withholding some information under exemptions for government financial/technical information and material available for purchase, it failed to provide sufficient justification for withholding third-party information under paragraph 20(1)(b). The Information Commissioner ordered CMHC to disclose this third-party information.

• Application of paragraph 18(a) to government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) to confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information
• Application of paragraph 68(a) to material available for purchase
• Reasonableness of CMHC's discretion in withholding information

The complainant alleged that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) improperly withheld information related to communications about pig care standards. The information was claimed to be exempt under personal information (subsection 19(1)) and confidential third-party information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) exemptions. While some information was disclosed during the investigation, and the Commissioner found the remaining personal information properly withheld, the Commissioner determined that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) did not meet the exemption criteria. Therefore, the complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Control of records
• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information)

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) improperly withheld information related to a virtual town hall and SSHRC funding applications under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that SSHRC and the third party (Memorial University) failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements for exemption. Specifically, the OIC determined that the information did not meet the confidentiality criteria under the Act. As a result, the Information Commissioner ordered SSHRC to release all the withheld information.

• Whether the withheld information meets the definition of 'technical information' under paragraph 20(1)(b).
• Whether the withheld information meets the 'confidentiality' criteria under paragraph 20(1)(b).
• Whether the institution and third party met the burden of proof to justify withholding the information.
• Whether the information related to application success rates is financial or commercial information.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) improperly withheld information concerning a research project and an individual's role on an advisory board. The request focused on specific pages of records previously withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, relating to a seed grant program, a sentinel site, and a research network's governance structure. The Commissioner found that the information did not meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) as it was neither financial, commercial, scientific, nor technical. Consequently, the complaint was well founded, and the CIHR was ordered to disclose the information.

• Whether the withheld information meets the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information constitutes financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information as defined by the ATIA.
• Whether the third party provided sufficient representations to support the exemption.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld fatality investigation reports under the personal information (subsection 19(1)) and third-party commercial/technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that some withheld information did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), and that ESDC failed to properly consider its discretion for disclosure under subsection 19(2)(b). The Commissioner also found that much of the information claimed under paragraph 20(1)(b) did not meet the criteria for being commercial/technical or confidential, and that ESDC failed to exercise its discretion properly regarding information related to a third party that had consented to disclosure. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether information withheld under subsection 19(1) meets the definition of personal information.
• Whether ESDC exercised its discretion reasonably under subsection 19(2) for publicly available information.
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) meets the definition of confidential third-party commercial or technical information.
• Whether ESDC exercised its discretion reasonably under subsection 20(5) for information related to a consenting third party.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information related to an Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal decision concerning the death of an employee. The exemptions claimed were for personal information (subsection 19(1)), confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)), and solicitor-client privilege (section 23). The Information Commissioner found that ESDC failed to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(b) and did not properly exercise discretion for information withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 23. ESDC was ordered to disclose information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and to reconsider the disclosure of information withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 23.

• Justification for withholding personal information under subsection 19(1) ATIA
• Confidentiality and commercial/technical nature of information under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA
• Applicability of solicitor-client privilege under section 23 ATIA
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution before withholding information

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information related to submarine operations in the Arctic region under exemptions for confidential government information and national security. The Information Commissioner found that LAC did not provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the information under either exemption. The Commissioner recommended that LAC disclose the records in their entirety, but LAC stated it would not implement this recommendation.

• Justification for withholding information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Justification for withholding information under subsection 15(1) (national security, defence).
• Whether the institution met the 'harm test' for exemption 15(1).
• Whether the institution met the 'confidentiality' requirement for exemption 13(1).

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to various infrastructure investment plans and frameworks. The investigation found that ISC's initial search was insufficient, as the Offices of Primary Interest tasked may not have been appropriate and other offices might hold responsive records. The Information Commissioner ordered ISC to conduct a new, broader search for records.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Identification and tasking of appropriate offices of primary interest
• Adequacy of documentation of search efforts

The complainant alleged that Canada Post failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing their name. The investigation found that Canada Post did not demonstrate that all relevant offices had been tasked or that all responsive records were retrieved. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to identify and process any additional responsive records and provide a final response to the complainant.

• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records.
• Whether all relevant offices of primary interest were tasked with searching for records.
• Whether Canada Post provided sufficient explanation for missing records.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to the export of beluga whales, citing personal information (subsection 19(1)) and confidential third-party commercial information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) exemptions. The OIC investigation focused on paragraph 20(1)(b) after the personal information aspect was removed from scope. DFO and the third party failed to demonstrate that the information met the criteria for confidentiality under paragraph 20(1)(b). Consequently, the Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DFO to disclose the records, excluding any information properly withheld under subsection 19(1). DFO indicated it would comply with the order.

• Whether the medical certificates provided by Marineland constitute confidential third-party commercial information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information was treated consistently as confidential by the third party.
• Whether the information was publicly available.