Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to an investigation into an accidental death. The request was for the final investigation report. Transport Canada withheld information claiming exemptions for law enforcement, personal information, and confidential third-party commercial information. The Information Commissioner found that the institution and the third party failed to demonstrate that the exemptions applied to certain information, ordering disclosure of the incident number and other non-exempt records. Transport Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Applicability of paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement and conduct of investigations)
• Applicability of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Applicability of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party commercial information)
• Burden of proof on the institution and third party to justify exemptions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act, related to applications for legal funding. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP had improperly withheld information under sections 13(1)(a) and (c), 14, 15(1), and 23 (solicitor-client privilege). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose this information and to seek consent from the British Columbia government for certain records. The RCMP indicated they would not fully implement the order, leading the Commissioner to find the complaint well-founded.

• Application of exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies (s. 13)
• Application of exemptions related to federal-provincial affairs (s. 14)
• Application of exemptions related to international affairs (s. 15)
• Application of solicitor-client privilege (s. 23)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld employee time sheets under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The CRA claimed the information, related to a period of a labour strike, could identify employees who participated in the strike. The Information Commissioner found that while the User ID and PRI would reveal strike participation, the remaining time sheet data (date, attendance type, hours, etc.) did not meet the threshold for identifying individuals, as the CRA's evidence was speculative and the large number of employees made identification unlikely. The Commissioner ordered the CRA to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1).

• Whether time sheet information from a period coinciding with a labour strike could identify employees participating in the strike.
• Whether the CRA demonstrated a serious possibility of identification for the remaining time sheet data.
• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information regarding equipment leases under several exemptions, including financial and commercial information, and that PAPA did not conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that PAPA failed to demonstrate that the rental rate information met the requirements for the financial impact exemption (paragraph 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner was satisfied that PAPA conducted a reasonable search for records. PAPA was ordered to disclose the redacted rental rate information.

• Whether the withheld rental rate information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the institution properly applied exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the National Research Council Canada (NRC) improperly withheld information concerning negotiations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) regarding overtime conversion. The NRC claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the NRC failed to meet the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(c) for most of the withheld information, but upheld the exemption under section 23 for specific legal advice. The Commissioner ordered the release of the information improperly withheld under the other provisions. The NRC has indicated it will implement the order.

• Whether information concerning negotiations with a third party was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d).
• Whether information constituted advice or recommendations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a).
• Whether information constituted positions or plans for negotiations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(c).
• Whether information was subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 23.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The records concerned data analyzed in a Sea Lice Science Response Report. Neither DFO nor the third parties could demonstrate that the information met the requirements for the exemption, including objectivity or that it was supplied by a third party. A section 26 exemption was also considered and dismissed. The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to fully disclose the records.

• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party.
• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of section 26 of the ATIA (information to be published).

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning housing guides and criteria for Indigenous communities from 1960 to 1990. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found the search was initially unreasonable, as ISC failed to retrieve all relevant records. After further searches prompted by the OIC, 800 pages of responsive records were identified. The OIC ordered ISC to release records promptly, with a final response to follow.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Identification and retrieval of all responsive records.
• Timeliness of interim and final responses to the access request.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information from the "Rodal report" under several exemptions. Initially, LAC withheld information under sections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1)(c), and 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, LAC released most of the information, abandoning reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23. The OIC found that LAC could not initially demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of section 13(1). However, the OIC was satisfied that LAC properly withheld information under section 15(1) after reasonable exercise of discretion, and that the information met the requirements of section 13(1). The complaint was found to be well-founded because LAC improperly withheld information initially.

• Whether information was properly withheld under section 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 15(1) (international affairs, defence).
• Whether LAC properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.
• Whether LAC properly ceased reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld records related to Tetra Tech under exemptions related to confidential third-party information and accounts of deliberations. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada failed to demonstrate that certain withheld information met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) because it was publicly available, not supplied by the third party, or not objectively confidential. However, the Commissioner found that Health Canada properly exercised its discretion in withholding information under paragraph 21(1)(b). The complaint was found to be well-founded regarding the paragraph 20(1)(b) exemptions.

• Confidentiality of third-party information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Accounts of consultations or deliberations (s. 21(1)(b) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of discretion in withholding information

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information related to the Ksi Lisims LNG project under exemptions concerning confidential third-party information, financial impact, and negotiations. The complainant narrowed the complaint to specific pages, and the IAAC eventually agreed to disclose some information or could not justify withholding it under certain exemptions. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded regarding information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73, ordering their disclosure. The Commissioner also ordered the IAAC to re-evaluate the decision to withhold information on page 67 under discretionary grounds.

• Confidential third-party information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Interference with third-party negotiations (s. 20(1)(d) ATIA)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion under s. 20(6) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request for records related to solicitation documents. The Information Commissioner found SSC's benchmark for processing records and its inclusion of anticipated delays from new ATIP Express software to be unreasonable. While acknowledging SSC's difficulties with the software, the Commissioner stressed that it should not impede access rights. The Commissioner found the extension to be unreasonable and ordered interim releases and a complete response by September 30, 2025.

• Reasonableness of extension of time to respond to access request under s. 9(1)(a) ATIA
• Impact of new ATIP software on processing times and access rights
• Application of s. 10(3) ATIA (deemed refusal)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee between November 1, 1957, and December 31, 1958. The Information Commissioner found that PCO's initial search was not reasonable. PCO conducted a new search during the investigation and found additional records. The Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a supplementary response by November 22, 2024. PCO has indicated it will implement the order.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completion of record retrieval and processing

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning the creation of the Intelligence Coordinator position between September 1984 and February 1985. The OIC found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, and PCO later located 187 additional responsive pages after further searches. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by December 10, 2024, which PCO agreed to implement.

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

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the review of the Canadian intelligence program between 1972 and 1975. The investigation found that PCO's initial search was not reasonable as not all relevant records were retrieved. Following the OIC's intervention, PCO conducted a subsequent search and identified 265 additional pages of responsive records. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by March 18, 2025.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of the records disclosed
• Timeliness of the institution's response

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage (PCH) failed to conduct reasonable searches for records concerning registered lobbying communications from 2020-2021. The Information Commissioner found that while the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) initially tasked did their jobs, PCH did not involve all OPIs most likely to hold responsive records, specifically the Corporate Secretariat and the Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks. The Commissioner ordered PCH to task the relevant OPIs, conduct new searches, and provide access to any additional responsive records.

• Reasonableness of searches conducted by the institution.
• Proper identification and tasking of Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) to conduct searches.
• Whether all relevant records were identified and located.