Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request for specific historical files within the extended time limit. The investigation found that LAC did not respond by the required date, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The delay was attributed to the ATIP office's failure to process the request in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered LAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days, but LAC indicated it would not be implementing the order due to existing workload.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limits.
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act.
• The institution's obligation to respond to an access request even when deemed to have refused.
• The institution's notice of non-implementation of the Commissioner's order.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit. The request concerned specific documents related to past litigation. The investigation found that CIRNAC did not respond by the deadline and was therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner found the delay by the Resolution & Partnerships unit in retrieving records unacceptable and ordered CIRNAC to provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit
• Delay in retrieving records by an Office of Primary Interest (OPI)
• Definition of a 'response' under the Act

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the funding and fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations from the Deputy Minister's Office. The investigation revealed deficiencies in CIRNAC's search efforts, indicating that not all likely locations for records were searched. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CIRNAC to conduct a new search and provide a response to the complainant.

• Definition of a reasonable search
• Completeness of search efforts across different sectors
• Accessibility of records due to system changes
• Evidence of record existence despite limited disclosure

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period. The request concerned records referenced in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Despite Health Canada receiving over 20,000 pages of responsive records and needing to conduct consultations, the Information Commissioner found their proposed response date of July 17, 2030, to be unreasonable given the significant delays already incurred. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to provide a complete response by April 7, 2026.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Reasonableness of proposed response date
• Impact of record volume and consultations on processing time
• Definition of a complete response

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under the Access to Information Act's personal information exemption and failed to conduct a reasonable search. DND conceded it had not always properly applied the exemption and provided supplementary disclosure. The Information Commissioner found that while the remaining withheld information met the exemption criteria, DND's initial search was not reasonable as it failed to pursue all avenues to locate responsive records, including those lost due to poor information management practices. The Commissioner recommended improved training on information management.

• Proper application of the personal information exemption (section 19(1) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Adequacy of information management practices
• Burden of proof for withholding information

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the legislated time limits, even after an extension. The request was for records concerning meetings and lobbying efforts by the Pathways Alliance Inc. The investigation found that ECCC did not provide a response by the extended deadline due to significant delays by internal offices in retrieving records. The Commissioner ordered ECCC to provide a response by a specific date and recommended improvements to internal processes for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the extended period.
• Delays in retrieving responsive records from internal program areas.
• Need for improved processes and accountability for timely record retrieval within the institution.

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documents related to Operation Safe Haven. The Information Commissioner found that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond within the timeframe, deeming access refused. The Commissioner specifically cited unacceptable delays by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command in retrieving records. An order was issued for National Defence to provide a complete response within 60 business days, along with recommendations for improving internal processes and accountability for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond within the statutory 30-day period
• Unacceptable delay in retrieving records from an Office of Primary Interest (CFINTCOM)
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Need for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning Operation Aegis within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond in a timely manner and is deemed to have refused access. The delay by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command in providing records was found to be unacceptable. An order was issued for National Defence to provide a complete response within 60 business days, along with recommendations for process improvements and accountability for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit (subsection 7 ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access (subsection 10(3) ATIA)
• Unacceptable delay in retrieving responsive records from an Office of Primary Interest
• Need for improved departmental processes and accountability for timely record retrieval

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) improperly withheld records concerning the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion requirements, citing exemptions related to facilitating offenses, personal information, financial impact, negotiations, and advice/deliberations. While SSHRC successfully justified withholding some personal information under subsection 19(1) and advice/deliberations under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), it failed to demonstrate that other information met the criteria for exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d). The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered SSHRC to disclose the remaining information, which SSHRC agreed to implement.

• Exemption under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating commission of an offence)
• Exemption under subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(b), (c), (d) (third-party commercial/financial information, negotiations)
• Exemption under paragraphs 21(1)(a), (b) (advice, deliberations)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld records containing minutes from the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) from 1989, citing exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs/national security. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most records but continued to withhold specific categories, including liaison officer titles, information on foreign intelligence visits, dissemination markings, names of CSE employees, and intelligence report titles. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to justify withholding these records under the cited exemptions. The Commissioner recommended disclosure of all withheld information, except for the names of liaison officers from allied countries, which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO subsequently announced it would not implement the Commissioner's recommendations.

• Whether PCO properly applied exemptions under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence) to the withheld records.
• Whether PCO provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm from the disclosure of the withheld information.
• Whether PCO properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.
• Whether PCO's reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) (account of consultations or deliberations) was justified.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld records from 1959 under exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs. PCO initially withheld information but later agreed to disclose most of it, continuing to withhold specific details like Liaison Officers' titles and dissemination markings. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not properly apply the exemptions and recommended full disclosure, except for Liaison Officers' titles. PCO indicated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence)
• Whether disclosure would cause reasonable expectation of harm
• PCO's exercise of discretion in withholding information

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld records from 1966 under exemptions related to confidential government information and international affairs/national security. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to justify withholding the information under these exemptions. PCO stated it would disclose most records but refused to implement the Commissioner's recommendation to release all withheld information, leading to a 'well-founded' decision.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence)
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions
• Reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under sections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1963. The Information Commissioner found that the exemptions were not properly applied to the withheld information and recommended disclosure. PCO indicated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Whether PCO properly applied subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Whether PCO properly applied subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence).
• Whether the exemptions claimed by PCO were justified given the age of the records and previous disclosures.
• PCO's decision not to implement the Commissioner's recommendations.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld historical records from 1982-1983 regarding the Intelligence Advisory Committee under exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs/national security. While PCO agreed to release some information during the investigation, the Information Commissioner found that the remaining withheld information did not meet the requirements for these exemptions. The Commissioner recommended disclosure, but PCO stated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Whether information concerning Liaison Officer titles was obtained in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of Liaison Officer titles, dissemination markings, CSE employee names, and report titles would cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information
• Whether PCO's stated reasons for withholding information were speculative and not supported by evidence of probable harm

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld records from 1981 under access to information exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs/national security. PCO initially withheld information but later stated it would disclose most of it, except for specific categories. The Information Commissioner found that PCO had not properly applied the exemptions and recommended disclosure of all information. However, PCO indicated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Whether information regarding liaison officers' titles was obtained in confidence under subsection 13(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the disclosure of various records, including liaison officer titles, distribution markings, CSE employee names, and intelligence report titles, could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under subsection 15(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether PCO properly exercised its discretion in withholding information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the ATIA.
• PCO's refusal to implement the Commissioner's recommendations.