Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

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 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint against Google's search engine service. The complainant alleged that Google was violating PIPEDA by displaying links to old media articles about their arrest and criminal charge. While the OPC found that Google complied with accuracy requirements, it determined that the continued display of these sensitive articles, which caused significant harm to the complainant, outweighed the limited public interest. The OPC recommended Google de-list the articles, but Google refused, stating the matter should be decided by the courts.

• Whether Google contravened PIPEDA's accuracy requirements by displaying links to outdated articles.
• Whether Google contravened PIPEDA's "appropriate purposes" provision by displaying sensitive personal information linked to an individual's name.
• Balancing individual privacy rights against freedom of expression in the context of search engine results.
• Determining the public interest in accessing historical, sensitive information via search engine results.

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.

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 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 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 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