Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information related to a contract for an Access to Information consultant. ESDC claimed exemptions for personal information, financial impact on third parties, consultations or deliberations, solicitor-client privilege, and restrictions by other laws. The Information Commissioner found that ESDC improperly withheld information concerning the consultant's job duties and experience, some third-party financial details, and certain accounts of deliberations. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose this information and to re-evaluate consent for some personal information.

• Proper application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Proper application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on third party)
• Proper application of paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion for exemptions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld "Repayments to Date" figures for 12 third parties under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The institution and several third parties argued that disclosure could harm competitive positions or financial interests. The Information Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties met the burden of proving that disclosure would cause harm beyond the merely possible. The Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose the information.

• Whether the "Repayments to Date" figures met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA regarding financial impact on a third party.
• Whether the "Repayments to Date" figures met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(d) of the ATIA regarding interference with third-party negotiations.
• Whether the third parties or the institution met their burden of proof to demonstrate that disclosure would cause harm beyond the merely possible.
• Whether the disclosure of the information was in the public interest.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning the Copyright Media Clearance Program by the extended deadline. PSPC had not provided a response when the extended deadline of September 4, 2020, expired. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded and ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the extended time limit.
• The implications of an institution failing to respond by the deadline.

The complainant alleged the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the "E Norther" file. The RCMP initially refused to search the Legal Services Unit, claiming records would not be under their control. The Information Commissioner found this unreasonable, ordering the RCMP to search and process any responsive records found. The RCMP subsequently located additional records and provided a supplementary release to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Determination of record control for access to information purposes.
• Scope of records requested by the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing all final decisions made between January 2018 and June 2020. The IRB's ATIP office mistakenly narrowed the request to only written decisions, excluding responsive audio recordings without the complainant's consent. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the IRB to process all responsive audio recordings.

• Reasonableness of search
• Definition of 'record' under ATIA
• Scope of access request
• Assistance to requesters

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld Total Repayment figures related to the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) program, citing exemptions concerning financial impact on third parties (s. 20(1)(c)) and other provisions. The scope was narrowed to 21 third parties. The Information Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties provided sufficient evidence to meet the requirements for these exemptions. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the withheld information.

• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information).
• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with third-party negotiations).
• The burden of proof on the institution and third parties to demonstrate that exemptions apply.

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) wrongfully refused to process an access request for records related to informal official language complaints. SSC argued that the request, even after narrowing its scope, did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act because it would require tasking too many employees and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden. The Information Commissioner disagreed, finding the request sufficiently detailed and ordering SSC to process it.

• Whether the access request provided sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee to identify records with reasonable effort.
• Whether administrative burden on an institution is a valid reason to refuse processing a request.
• Whether the scope of the request necessitated tasking all employees of the department.
• Whether section 6.1 of the Act was the appropriate process to address claims of vexatious requests.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to provide records regarding a specific contract. PSPC stated they could not identify relevant records, claiming they were not in their possession. The Information Commissioner found that while the records (a subcontract and related documents) were not in PSPC's physical possession, they were under PSPC's control for the purposes of the Access to Information Act. Therefore, PSPC should have retrieved and processed these records.

• Whether records held by a third-party contractor are under the control of a federal institution.
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.
• The interpretation of the 'under the control' clause in the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld job creation estimates under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The scope was narrowed to 11 third parties. Only one third party, Toyota, provided representations to support the exemption. The Information Commissioner found that neither ISED nor Toyota sufficiently demonstrated that disclosure would cause material financial harm or prejudice competitive position. The Commissioner recommended disclosure of all information, but ISED stated it would continue to withhold certain information related to Toyota.

• Application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Sufficiency of representations from third parties
• Reasonable expectation of harm
• Necessity of an explanatory note

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada (LAC) due to consistently delayed responses to access requests over several years. The investigation found that nearly 80% of requests completed by LAC during the period under review did not meet the timeframes stipulated by the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner made ten recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and subsequently tabled a special report in Parliament highlighting issues at LAC and broader challenges within the access to information system.

• Timeliness of access to information requests
• Consultation processes between institutions
• Lack of a government-wide declassification framework

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld records related to $103 million in funding from the National Trade Corridors Fund. The VFPA cited exemptions related to government interests, negotiations, and confidential third-party information. The Information Commissioner found that the VFPA failed to demonstrate that all withheld information met the requirements for exemptions under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d). Furthermore, the VFPA and the third party, Canadian National Railway, did not demonstrate that the exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d) were met. The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of all information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), and specific information withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d). The VFPA agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority properly applied exemptions under paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority discharged its burden to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the cited exemptions.
• Whether the third party, Canadian National Railway, met the requirements for the application of exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d).
• Whether the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable 2,280 days to respond to an access request. Justice claimed an extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act due to the large volume and complexity of records and the need for consultations. The Information Commissioner found that while the volume of records and the need for consultations were valid reasons for an extension, Justice failed to sufficiently justify the length of the extension claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a). Therefore, the complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered Justice to provide a final response forthwith.

• Reasonableness of time extension claimed due to volume of records (s. 9(1)(a) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of time extension claimed for consultations (s. 9(1)(b) ATIA)
• Justification for the duration of specific processing steps
• Failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of the claimed extension period

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada's (LAC) delayed responses to access requests. The investigation found that nearly 80% of requests completed by LAC during the period under review did not meet legislative deadlines. The Commissioner made ten recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address the systemic issues causing these delays, which include problems with inter-institutional consultations, lack of a declassification framework, insufficient infrastructure for processing classified records, and inadequate ATIP resources.

• LAC's failure to respond to access requests within legislative timeframes.
• Excessive delays caused by inter-institutional consultations.
• Lack of infrastructure and processes for handling classified records.
• Insufficient resources and funding for LAC's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office.

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld portions of a draft feasibility study. Parks Canada initially cited exemptions related to personal information, financial impact on third parties, and negotiations by a third party. During the investigation, Parks Canada shifted its reliance to the exemption for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. The Information Commissioner found that neither Parks Canada nor the third party (Liricon Capital Ltd.) demonstrated that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered Parks Canada to disclose specific portions of the study.

• Whether information in a draft feasibility study was properly withheld under exemptions related to personal information, financial impact, negotiations, or confidential third-party information.
• Whether the institution and third party met the burden of proof to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether certain withheld information was already publicly available or disclosed elsewhere in the record, thus failing the confidentiality requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information related to Board of Directors meetings, citing exemptions under sections 21 and 26 of the Access to Information Act. TMC later claimed a total of 15 exemptions and failed to provide sufficient justification or detail for withholding the information. The Commissioner found TMC's application of exemptions was incorrect and disclosure was warranted. However, after the Commissioner issued an intended order, TMC released additional information, satisfying the complainant, and rendering a formal order unnecessary.

• Adequacy of justification for claimed exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion
• Application of severability principle
• Failure to identify specific withheld information and third parties