Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

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 Indigenous Services Canada improperly withheld a settlement agreement with the Squamish Nation and related documents. The institution claimed exemptions related to financial impact on a third party, interference with negotiations, and solicitor-client/litigation privilege. The Information Commissioner found that the institution failed to demonstrate that these exemptions applied, noting that much of the information was already public and that claims of harm were speculative. The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the records, but the institution later stated it would not comply.

• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with negotiations).
• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege).
• The institution's refusal to comply with the Commissioner's disclosure order.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) did not respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit and improperly requested additional clarifications. The request concerned information about ESDC's grants and contributions program for workplace opportunities since 2014. The OIC found that ESDC's requests for clarification were not justified and that the original request provided sufficient detail. The OIC determined that ESDC failed to respond within the legislated timeframe due to numerous interactions and delays in retrieving records.

• Timeliness of response to access request (ATIA s. 7)
• Proper use of clarification requests (ATIA s. 6)
• Adequacy of detail in access request

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct a reasonable search for intelligence assessments on Iraq. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated and found that the institution did not retrieve all relevant records and failed to provide representations on its search efforts. The OIC ordered National Defence to conduct a second search, which located three additional records. National Defence agreed to implement the order.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Institution's failure to provide representations to the OIC
• Scope of records responsive to the access request

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for emails related to a specific CSIS brief concerning foreign interference. The investigation found that PCO's initial search was inadequate, as additional relevant records were discovered during a second search, including 11 pages of emails. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a new response to the access request.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Failure to retrieve all responsive records.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit required by the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to specific committees. The investigation found that CSE did not respond by the deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. CSE cited processing delays, extensive consultations with other institutions, and staffing issues for the significant delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CSE to respond within 72 business days, but CSE indicated it would seek judicial review.

• Failure to respond to access request within statutory time limits.
• Delay in processing and consulting with other institutions.
• Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed response date.
• The institution's decision to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's order.

The complainant alleged that the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the mandatory 30-day timeframe. The request sought records related to a previous access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that CSE did not respond by the deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. The delay was attributed to unresponsiveness from internal offices responsible for retrieving records. The Commissioner ordered CSE to provide a response to the access request within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day statutory period
• Deemed refusal of access due to delay
• Impact of internal office unresponsiveness on meeting access obligations

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day limit required by the Access to Information Act. The request was for specific files related to the Assessment Review Group. The investigation found that CSE did not respond by the due date and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to slow record review and consultation processes. The Information Commissioner ordered CSE to respond within 72 business days.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (section 7 of ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access due to delay (subsection 10(3) of ATIA)
• Unacceptable delay in processing access requests
• CSE's decision not to implement the Commissioner's order and to seek judicial review

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit. The request sought information on flights of Canadian government-owned planes landing in Lebanon. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to unresponsiveness from internal offices. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (section 7 ATIA).
• Deemed refusal of access due to non-response (subsection 10(3) ATIA).
• Impact of internal delays on meeting access to information obligations.
• Responsibility of the institution to ensure timely responses.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information about grants and contributions under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED failed to demonstrate that disclosing the assistance type for certain projects would reasonably be expected to harm ongoing negotiations or contractual matters. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered ISED to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 18(b).

• Application of paragraph 18(b) of the ATIA regarding negotiations by government institutions.
• Burden of proof on the institution to demonstrate harm from disclosure.
• Reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations from releasing assistance type for grants and contributions.

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a significant increase in access requests for immigration information and a rise in delay complaints. The investigation found that CBSA is overwhelmed by these requests because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has not implemented an effective system for clients to retrieve their own immigration application information. This has caused a spillover effect, increasing CBSA's workload. The Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to address the issue, and CBSA has committed to implementing them.

• High volume of access requests for immigration application information made to CBSA.
• Increase in delay complaints against CBSA.
• Lack of an effective system for clients to retrieve immigration application information directly from IRCC.
• Impact of IRCC's delays on CBSA's ATIP unit workload.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a hiring process within the legislated 30-day period. The investigation found that DND did not meet the deadline, and the delay was caused by the unresponsiveness of an internal office. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to respond to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response
• Consequences of not responding within the prescribed time limit

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonably long extension of time to respond to a request for RCMP records concerning Project Anecdote. LAC claimed an extension of over 65 years, citing the large volume of records (780,000 pages) requiring digitization and review, as well as consultations. The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the extension, as it did not justify the calculation method, the sole reliance on one employee, or the concurrent nature of tasks. Therefore, the extension was deemed invalid and LAC was considered to have refused access.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a) due to volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(b) due to consultations
• Calculation of extension based on specific tasks and resources
• LAC's failure to demonstrate that the extension was for the shortest possible duration

The complainant alleged that Ingenium improperly withheld records related to an exhibit loan under several Access to Information Act provisions. During the investigation, Ingenium decided to no longer rely on some exemptions and agreed to disclose more information. The Commissioner found that photographs withheld under section 14 (federal-provincial affairs) and paragraph 68(c) (material placed by others) were not properly excluded or exempted. The Commissioner ordered Ingenium to disclose the records.

• Whether photographs were properly excluded under paragraph 68(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether photographs were properly exempted under section 14 of the ATIA (federal-provincial affairs).
• The application of the ATIA versus Quebec privacy legislation and Charter values.
• The interpretation of "material placed by others" under paragraph 68(c).

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld records concerning the use of Indigenous languages in the House of Commons proceedings, citing exemptions related to government and third-party negotiations. The Information Commissioner found that PSPC failed to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(d) regarding third-party negotiations. While PSPC could withhold per diem rates under paragraph 18(b) related to government negotiations, it failed to reasonably exercise its discretion in doing so. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose most of the withheld information and reconsider its decision on the per diem rates.

• Proper application of paragraph 18(b) (negotiations by government institutions)
• Proper application of paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion to withhold information
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions