Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to a virtual town hall meeting and other contacts between SSHRC and Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador (MUN) officials. SSHRC withheld technical information for WebEx meetings and data on MUN's application and success rates for SSHRC funding programs, citing confidentiality. The Commissioner found that while the WebEx access information was technical, neither SSHRC nor MUN demonstrated that it met the confidentiality criteria, particularly given the large number of potential attendees and lack of measures to prevent sharing. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that MUN's application and success rates were not financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and SSHRC later confirmed some of this information was publicly available. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the information did not meet the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b).

• Whether the withheld information is financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the WebEx access information is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether MUN's application and success rates are confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party
• Whether the relationship between the institution and third party was fostered for public benefit by confidential communication

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) improperly withheld information under subsections 18(a), 19(1), and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, concerning an individual's role on the Pfizer Lyme Disease Advisory Board and their research project. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope to three specific sections of records withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). The OIC sought representations from the third party (Nominated Principal Investigator via Queen's University), who had no concerns with disclosure. CIHR subsequently conceded that the threshold for paragraph 20(1)(b) had not been met and indicated preparedness to release the information. The Commissioner found that the information at issue, describing aspects of a proposed research network, was not financial, commercial, scientific, or technical as required by paragraph 20(1)(b). Therefore, the Commissioner concluded that the exemption did not apply. The complaint was found to be well founded, and CIHR was ordered to disclose the information.

• Whether the withheld information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for fatality investigation reports from rail industry employers. The Information Commissioner found that while much of the withheld information was personal information under s.19(1), some was not about identifiable individuals and should be disclosed. Regarding third-party information, the Commissioner determined that neither ESDC nor the third parties provided sufficient justification for withholding all information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c). The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose information not about identifiable individuals, re-exercise discretion regarding publicly available personal information, disclose information not meeting the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), and re-exercise discretion under subsection 20(5) for information related to a third party that consented to disclosure. ESDC agreed to implement the order. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information withheld under s.19(1) was truly about identifiable individuals
• Whether ESDC adequately considered if personal information was publicly available under s.19(2)(b)
• Whether ESDC adequately considered public interest in disclosure under s.19(2)(c) in relation to s.8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether information met the definition of financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether information was confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether information was consistently treated as confidential by third parties under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.20(5) when a third party consented to disclosure
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.20(6) for public health or safety reasons
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact or injure competitive position under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether ESDC properly applied severance under s.25

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act, related to an Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal decision concerning a Canadian National Railway (CN Rail) employee's death. The Commissioner found that ESDC and CN Rail did not demonstrate that all requirements for paragraph 20(1)(b) were met, particularly regarding confidentiality and whether the information was truly commercial or technical. While ESDC met the requirements for subsection 19(1) and section 23, the Commissioner determined that ESDC failed to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information, especially for publicly available personal information. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and to re-exercise its discretion for information withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 23, considering all relevant factors for and against disclosure. ESDC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) for personal information
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client privilege exemption was properly applied
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion for s.23 solicitor-client privileged information

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act concerning submarine operations in the Arctic. LAC initially released some information but maintained that the remaining records were justifiably withheld. The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate that the information was obtained in confidence, as required by subsection 13(1), lacking evidence of an expectation of confidentiality. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that LAC did not provide convincing evidence that the disclosure of the information, much of which was historical and publicly available, could reasonably be expected to harm national security or defence, as required by subsection 15(1). Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded and recommended full disclosure. However, LAC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendation.

• Whether the information was obtained in confidence from a specified government body under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to national security or defence from disclosure under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the National Priority Ranking Framework, the Priority Framework for Water and Wastewater Projects, and long-term First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plans, including internal correspondence, from 2014 onwards. The investigation revealed that the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) initially tasked with the search might not have been the most appropriate ones, and that additional OPIs likely held responsive records. ISC was unable to provide concrete details about the search parameters or sufficient documentation of their efforts. The Commissioner concluded that ISC did not conduct a reasonable search. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISC to conduct a new, expanded search and provide a new response to the complainant, either granting access to any additional records found or explaining why no such records were located.

• Whether Indigenous Services Canada conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request

The complainant alleged that Canada Post failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing their name in response to an access request. The investigation by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that Canada Post had not demonstrated that all relevant Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) were tasked or that those tasked produced all relevant records. The OIC noted the absence of certain record types, such as personnel files, overtime sheets, and day logs, which the complainant identified as missing or incomplete. Canada Post could not provide sufficient explanation for these omissions, nor for why only one work location was tasked when the complainant worked at several. The Commissioner concluded that Canada Post did not conduct a reasonable search. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and Canada Post was ordered to conduct a more thorough search and process any newly identified records.

• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether all relevant Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) were tasked
• Whether all relevant records under the OPIs' control were produced

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act. The requested records were medical certificates provided by Marineland for the export of five beluga whales. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1), removing it from the scope of the complaint. The Commissioner found that DFO and Marineland failed to demonstrate that the information met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), specifically that the information was confidential and consistently treated as such. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered DFO to disclose the records in their entirety, excluding any information previously withheld under subsection 19(1). DFO agreed to implement the order.

• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to the medical certificates
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was confidential
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether the information was available from sources otherwise accessible by the public
• Whether the information originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation of non-disclosure
• Whether the information was communicated in a fiduciary relationship or one not contrary to the public interest

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) improperly withheld records under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records from the 1850s to 1980 related to land ownership, sale, reversion, or return on the Bruce/Saugeen Peninsula. CIRNAC initially claimed solicitor-client privilege but later conceded it did not apply, then reversed course to maintain section 23 based on litigation privilege, citing ongoing court cases. The Information Commissioner found that CIRNAC failed to establish that the records were subject to litigation privilege, specifically that they were produced or gathered for the dominant purpose of the cited litigation. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the records. CIRNAC refused to implement the recommendation, asserting the information remained protected by litigation privilege. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether the records were subject to litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether the records were produced or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) (national security, defence) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act concerning historical Canadian intelligence assessments. The OIC found that PCO was justified in withholding information under subsection 19(1). However, PCO failed to demonstrate how the release of distribution markings, names of former Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, a distribution list of allies, information on nuclear development programs, and technology transfer details would cause a reasonable expectation of harm under subsection 15(1). The Commissioner noted that similar information had been previously released by PCO and other institutions, discrediting PCO's claims of harm. Furthermore, the Commissioner was not satisfied that PCO properly exercised its discretion in deciding against disclosure. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety, but PCO indicated it would not implement the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to distribution markings
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to a distribution list of allies
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on nuclear development programs
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on technology transfer
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on a region-based working group
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) improperly withheld information in response to an access request for final versions of documents. CMHC initially claimed exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 19(1), 20(1)(b), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, the scope of the complaint was narrowed, and CMHC voluntarily disclosed some information previously withheld under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(b). The remaining information was withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), concerning third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. The Information Commissioner found that CMHC and the third parties (TD Bank Financial Group and Andrew Kalotay Associates, Inc.) failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), as the third parties did not provide representations and CMHC could not show that all conditions for the exemption were met. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered CMHC to disclose all information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). CMHC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(a) ATIA (government trade secrets, government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied
• Whether s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client privilege) was properly applied

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, related to applications and Minimum Safe Manning Documents for the motor vessel Spirit of Vancouver Island. The complaint regarding subsection 19(1) was later removed from the investigation's scope. During the investigation, Transport Canada also applied paragraph 20(1)(b.1) to one document. The Commissioner found that while portions of one document met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b.1), the titles and headings did not. Furthermore, neither Transport Canada nor the third party provided sufficient representations to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(b), except for the titles and headings of the document also claimed under 20(1)(b.1). The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose all information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(b.1), with the exception of the main content of page 50, and to disclose the titles and headings on page 50. Transport Canada indicated it would "likely" comply with the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information was properly withheld
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information was properly withheld
• Whether s.20(1)(b.1) third-party emergency management plans information was properly withheld
• Whether the information concerned critical infrastructure information under s.20(1)(b.1)
• Whether the information was supplied in confidence under s.20(1)(b.1)
• Whether the information was supplied for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation of emergency management plans under s.20(1)(b.1)
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(5) regarding s.20(1)(b.1)
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(6) regarding s.20(1)(b.1)
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to two access requests. The requests sought electronic records related to masks, sent or received by a specific warehouse manager within defined timeframes. Initially, PHAC found no responsive records because the employee had deleted their entire mailbox, considering the contents transitory. During the OIC's investigation, PHAC conducted additional searches using IT forensics and identified 107 pages of responsive records, which were subsequently released. The Commissioner found that PHAC's initial search was inadequate as it did not consider other potential sources of records, such as emails sent to or from the employee by others, or corporate repositories. Despite the subsequent release of records and PHAC's commitment to an action plan for improved information management, the Commissioner concluded that the complaints were well founded due to the initial failure to conduct a reasonable search.

• Whether the Public Health Agency of Canada conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the first access request (5820-04413)
• Whether the Public Health Agency of Canada conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the second access request (5820-04414)
• Whether the deletion of an employee's email account impacted the ability to conduct a reasonable search
• Whether PHAC considered all reasonable sources for responsive records

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for correspondence between Public Safety and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Public Safety claimed a 240-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that Public Safety properly notified the complainant of the extension. However, Public Safety failed to demonstrate that the request involved a large number of records or that processing it within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with its operations, thus not meeting the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a). While Public Safety needed to consult with the RCMP, the Commissioner found the 180-day consultation period requested by the RCMP, based on service standards rather than complexity, to be unreasonable. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that Public Safety did not meet the requirements for a valid extension under either paragraph 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(b), rendering the extension invalid. Public Safety was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act.

• Whether the institution properly notified the complainant of the extension of time
• Whether the access request was for a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether the institution needed to carry out consultations on the requested records under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the institution responded within the time limits

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the procurement of new handguns for the military within the 30-day statutory time limit. PSPC received the request on June 4, 2021, and the response was due by July 5, 2021, but no response was provided. PSPC cited a backlog, operational challenges, heavy workloads, staff turnover, and competing priorities as reasons for the delay, and indicated a plan to respond by February 28, 2025. The Commissioner found that PSPC's reasons, including staffing shortages and the need for inter-institutional consultations, did not absolve it of its statutory obligation to provide a timely response. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC failed to meet its obligations under the Act and was deemed to have refused access. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PSPC was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days, an order which PSPC indicated it would not fully implement.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the 30-day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's reasons for delay (backlog, operational challenges, staff turnover, competing priorities, inter-institutional consultations) absolved it of its statutory obligation to respond within the time limit