Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) improperly withheld and redacted information from an Issue Detail Report. The complainant also alleged the use of improper 'white' redactions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering the CFIA to disclose most of the withheld third-party information, except for supplier names, procedural details, and product weighing processes. The Commissioner also recommended the CFIA stop using white redactions.

• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Application of paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) (confidential third-party information, financial impact)
• Improper use of negative (white) redactions
• CFIA's duty to assist the requester

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning annual expenses incurred to provide security for internationally protected persons visiting Canada. The RCMP provided a two-page summary instead of retrieving the requested records, arguing that most would be exempt. The Information Commissioner found the search unreasonable, ordering the RCMP to conduct a new search and respond to the request.

• Reasonableness of search
• Failure to retrieve and process records
• Provision of summary in lieu of records

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld records concerning CSL Group Inc. and failed to conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that ESDC did not provide sufficient justification for withholding most of the information under various exemptions, including those related to law enforcement, personal information, third-party commercial information, and advice/deliberations. Additionally, the Commissioner found that ESDC's search for records was not reasonable. As a result, the Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose most of the information and conduct a new search.

• Improper withholding of information under various ATIA exemptions
• Reasonableness of ESDC's search for records
• ESDC's failure to provide sufficient justification for exemptions
• ESDC's unreasonable exercise of discretion for paragraph 21(1)(a)

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld third-party information and failed to conduct a reasonable search. The request was for documents related to stakeholder consultations on drug regulations. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada did not meet the requirements to exempt the third-party names under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, nor did it conduct a reasonable search. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the third-party names and perform a new search.

• Exemption of third-party names under paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of 'financial, commercial, scientific or technical information'
• Objective confidentiality of information

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for specific IAC reports from 1990 concerning the USSR and former Warsaw Pact countries. The OIC found that PCO initially failed to retrieve all relevant records, despite an additional search yielding 1,352 pages. PCO later identified 98 further pages. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by January 22, 2026, which PCO has agreed to implement.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by PCO
• Completeness of the records provided
• Timeliness of the supplementary response

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the "Cedar LNG" project within the extended timeframe. The investigation found that ECCC did not respond by the deadline, and the delay was attributed to internal offices taking too long to provide records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering ECCC to provide interim responses and a complete response by March 16, 2026, and recommended improvements to internal processes for timely record submission.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limits.
• Timeliness of internal record retrieval by Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs).
• Adequacy of ECCC's processes for handling access to information requests.
• Balancing the need for consultations with the right to timely access.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld financial statements for the leaseback of seven buildings, citing exemptions related to government financial interests, personal information, third-party commercial information, and consultations. PSPC failed to demonstrate that the exemptions applied, particularly given the public funds involved. The Information Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the information, and the institution indicated it would comply. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Application of exemptions under paragraphs 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify withholding information, especially concerning public funds.
• Adequacy of representations to demonstrate material harm, financial impact, or interference with negotiations.
• Confidentiality requirements for third-party information under paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions related to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. The investigation found that the RCMP did not adequately search records within the requested timeframe and improperly deemed a large police reporting file irrelevant. The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search and process the previously excluded file.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the RCMP.
• Timeliness of the search conducted by the RCMP.
• Relevance of the Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for a specific report and associated documents within the mandatory 30-day timeframe. The investigation found that DND did not provide a response by the deadline, and a delay by an internal Office of Primary Interest (OPI) in retrieving records was deemed unacceptable. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Failure to meet the 30-day response deadline
• Unacceptable delay in record retrieval by an OPI

The complainant alleged that the Department of National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request was for a specific document dated November 8, 2018. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was therefore deemed to have refused access. The delay was caused by a subordinate office (CFINTCOM) taking an unacceptably long time to retrieve the requested records. The Information Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit
• DND deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3)
• Unacceptable delay in record retrieval by subordinate office
• Order for complete response within 36 business days

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning Class D operation with a single engine helicopter, requested between Transport Canada and the RCMP. Transport Canada initially provided only two pages but later, during the investigation, found approximately 690 additional pages. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering Transport Canada to process these additional records and respond to the complainant within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by Transport Canada
• Proper processing of additional responsive records
• Timeliness of response after additional records were found

The complainant asked for the number of paid subscribers to CBC Gem. The CBC claimed this information was excluded under section 68.1 (journalistic, creative, or programming activities) and exempt under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position). The Information Commissioner found that the subscriber numbers, while related to programming, also related to the CBC's general administration, engaging the exception to section 68.1. The Commissioner also found that the CBC failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its competitive position or negotiations, beyond a mere possibility, if the information were disclosed. The Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose the information, but the CBC stated it would not implement the order.

• Applicability of section 68.1 exclusion to subscriber numbers
• Engagement of the exception to section 68.1 for general administration
• Demonstration of reasonable expectation of harm to competitive position under paragraph 18(b)
• Demonstration of reasonable expectation of interference with negotiations under paragraph 18(b)

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The request was for emails containing specific keywords related to COVID-19 and lockdowns. The Information Commissioner found that while some information, like contact tracing details and offender histories, properly qualified as personal information, other withheld information, such as the type of incidents in situation reports and dates of shifts for certain staff, did not. CSC was ordered to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), and the institution indicated it would comply.

• Whether information withheld under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA qualifies as personal information.
• Whether the institution demonstrated that disclosing certain information (e.g., shift dates, type of incident) would identify an individual.
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant requested an agreement and land claim settlement signed in 2000 between the federal government and the Squamish band from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC). CIRNAC withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that neither CIRNAC nor the third party (Squamish Nation) demonstrated that the exemptions applied. The Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety, but CIRNAC indicated they would not be disclosing them.

• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Burden of proof on institution and third party to demonstrate exemptions

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for specific categories of records held by a subject matter expert. Following the investigation, the CRA conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. The Commissioner ordered the CRA to process these additional records and provide a new response within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Existence of additional responsive records.