Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld records concerning decisions to change mailing services in Iqaluit, citing personal information, trade secrets, and advice/deliberation exemptions. The complainant also questioned the thoroughness of Canada Post's search for records. The Information Commissioner found that Canada Post failed to justify withholding records under subsection 18.1(1) and did not demonstrate a reasonable search was conducted. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose specific information and conduct a new search.

• Justification for withholding records under subsection 18.1(1)
• Applicability of subsection 18.1(2) exceptions
• Reasonableness of Canada Post's search for records
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify 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 correspondence related to specific topics. The CRA initially provided some records and explained why others were not retrieved. However, during the investigation, the CRA conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of the records disclosed
• Requirement to disclose records previously provided in response to other requests

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for historical assessments on Russia and former Soviet Union countries within the extended deadline. The Information Commissioner found that PCO's delay was unacceptable, particularly their lengthy consultation process and the excessive time allocated for internal review. The Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a response within 60 business days and recommended a review of their internal processes.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limits
• Unjustified extension of time for processing access requests
• Inefficiency in internal consultation and approval processes

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld records related to the initial application and approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline in the early 1950s. TMC failed to identify specific withheld information or demonstrate how it met exemption criteria under the Access to Information Act. TMC also failed to justify refusing to provide a copy of the records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered TMC to disclose the records.

• TMC's failure to identify specific withheld information.
• TMC's failure to establish that exemptions applied to the withheld information.
• TMC's failure to justify refusing to provide a copy of the records.
• The age of the records and lack of demonstrable safety threat.

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) had improperly withheld information related to its 2020-2021 inspection plan. The IAAC withheld information under numerous sections of the Access to Information Act, including exemptions related to federal-provincial affairs, investigations, third-party commercial information, and advice/deliberations. The Information Commissioner found that the IAAC failed to demonstrate that the exemptions were properly applied in many instances and did not adequately exercise its discretion to disclose information. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered the IAAC to disclose significant portions of the withheld information.

• Improper application of exemptions under the Access to Information Act
• Failure to demonstrate reasonable expectation of harm for withheld information
• Inadequate exercise of discretion to disclose information
• Application of third-party commercial and financial information exemptions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld records related to a health and safety strategy report and invoicing, citing personal information, trade secrets, and confidential third-party information. The Information Commissioner found that Canada Post failed to demonstrate that certain information met the requirements for exemption under subsections 18.1(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. Specifically, Canada Post could not prove the information was a trade secret, had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, or was exclusively supplied by the third party. The Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose certain withheld information, and Canada Post agreed to comply.

• Whether information on an invoice is confidential third-party commercial information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Whether information constitutes a trade secret or confidential commercial information belonging to Canada Post (s. 18.1(1))
• Whether withheld information is publicly available
• Whether information was supplied by a third party

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit. The request concerned documents related to the Public Health Agency of Canada and the National Microbiology Laboratory. Although Health Canada completed processing and consultations, it placed the response on hold pending ongoing investigations. The Information Commissioner found this delay unjustifiable under the Access to Information Act, as concerns about sensitive information should be addressed through exemptions, not by pausing the response. Health Canada subsequently provided a response, making a formal order unnecessary.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Justification for placing an access request on hold
• Timely access to information
• Application of exemptions versus delaying disclosure

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned records related to an issue paper on helicopter operations. The investigation found that Transport Canada did not meet its deadline due to delays in receiving records from an internal office. Although Transport Canada later stated the records were being processed under a separate request, the Commissioner ruled this did not constitute a complete response and ordered Transport Canada to provide a full response within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Definition of a 'complete response'
• Internal delays in retrieving records
• Accountability for ATIP processing delays

The complainant alleged that CMHC improperly withheld records regarding mortgage loans insured or sold by Laurentian Bank. CMHC withheld information claiming exemptions related to government financial/commercial information, personal information, and third-party financial/commercial information, and negotiations. The Information Commissioner found that while some information qualified for exemption under subsection 20(1)(b) (third-party information), other withheld information did not meet the exemption's requirements. The Commissioner ordered CMHC to disclose certain information that was not supplied by a third party. CMHC has indicated it will not comply with parts of the order and intends to apply to the Federal Court.

• Whether information withheld by CMHC qualified for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether information withheld by CMHC qualified for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether information withheld by CMHC qualified for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party).
• Whether CMHC's own observations and work product could be withheld as information supplied by a third party.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld records related to the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged the RCMP failed to conduct a reasonable search. While the Commissioner found that some information was properly withheld under sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records. The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to provide a new response and release any additional records found.

• Improper withholding of information under sections 15(1), 16(2)(c), 17, 19(1), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Failure to conduct a reasonable search for records.
• Application of sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) to specific pages.
• Reasonableness of the RCMP's discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that the RCMP improperly withheld information under sections 13(1), 19(1), and 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under section 19(1) and section 23, and parts of section 13(1), other information withheld under section 13(1) did not meet the exemption's requirements. Furthermore, the RCMP failed to seek consent from the relevant government bodies before withholding information under section 13(1), as required. The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose information that does not meet the requirements of section 13(1) and to seek consent for other information withheld under that section.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Proper application of section 23 (solicitor-client privilege)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion under subsections 13(2) and 19(2)

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to suicide occurrences and medevac data concerning mental health. The institution initially stated no records were found, but later indicated thousands of pages were received after the response was sent. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the institution to provide a new response by May 31, 2025.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Failure to locate responsive records

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) improperly withheld information related to requests for proposals (RFPs) under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including those concerning competitive position, government financial interests, personal information, and third-party financial impact and negotiations. The OPMC failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the cited exemptions, with the Commissioner finding the alleged harms to be speculative. The Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety, and the OPMC indicated it would comply.

• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position/negotiations)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests/undue benefit)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and if Privacy Act exceptions applied
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) (third-party financial impact/negotiations)

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) improperly withheld information related to Case No. 17-05835 under several exemptions, including third-party financial information and solicitor-client privilege. The Information Commissioner found that the CTA and a third party failed to demonstrate that the requirements for several exemptions, such as confidential third-party information, were met. The Commissioner ordered the CTA to disclose certain information and to re-exercise its discretion for other withheld records. The CTA agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records related to a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, citing financial impact on a third party. Transport Canada argued that disclosure could lead to public misinterpretation of the preliminary test results. However, the institution and the relevant third party (Ford Canada) did not demonstrate that the exemption requirements were met, especially with the possibility of an explanatory note. The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records in full, along with an explanatory note, finding the complaint well founded.

• Applicability of section 20(1)(c) to preliminary product testing
• Demonstrating material financial impact or competitive harm to a third party
• The role of explanatory notes in mitigating potential harm from disclosure
• Whether public misinterpretation constitutes harm under the Act