Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld portions of a draft feasibility study. Parks Canada initially cited exemptions related to personal information, financial impact on third parties, and negotiations by a third party. During the investigation, Parks Canada shifted its reliance to the exemption for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. The Information Commissioner found that neither Parks Canada nor the third party (Liricon Capital Ltd.) demonstrated that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered Parks Canada to disclose specific portions of the study.

• Whether information in a draft feasibility study was properly withheld under exemptions related to personal information, financial impact, negotiations, or confidential third-party information.
• Whether the institution and third party met the burden of proof to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether certain withheld information was already publicly available or disclosed elsewhere in the record, thus failing the confidentiality requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information related to Board of Directors meetings, citing exemptions under sections 21 and 26 of the Access to Information Act. TMC later claimed a total of 15 exemptions and failed to provide sufficient justification or detail for withholding the information. The Commissioner found TMC's application of exemptions was incorrect and disclosure was warranted. However, after the Commissioner issued an intended order, TMC released additional information, satisfying the complainant, and rendering a formal order unnecessary.

• Adequacy of justification for claimed exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion
• Application of severability principle
• Failure to identify specific withheld information and third parties

The complainant alleged that the Department of Finance Canada failed to respond to a request for information about a backgrounder document within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that significant delays were caused by an internal branch failing to provide records to the ATIP office in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered the Minister of Finance to provide a response forthwith, noting that the ongoing delay was unacceptable.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Internal delays in record retrieval and processing
• Application of subsection 10(3) (deemed refusal)

The complainant filed four complaints alleging the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to access requests within the 30-day time limit. The OIC found that the RCMP did not provide adequate justification for the significant delays, despite acknowledging operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to issue a response to each request.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit under section 7 of the ATIA
• Adequacy of justification for delays due to COVID-19 operational challenges
• Requirement for institutions to respond even when records are not yet retrieved

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) obstructed their right of access by unduly delaying the processing of a request for COVID-19 pandemic contracts. The investigation found significant failures in PSPC's processing, including grouping requests incorrectly and poor record management by the office of primary interest, leading to a year-long delay. While the delay was found to be a failure to provide timely access, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of intent to conceal records.

• Timeliness of access request processing
• Obligation to assist requesters
• Allegations of obstruction and concealment of records
• Proper handling of access requests by offices of primary interest

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) improperly withheld records concerning increased sick leave use before retirement, citing exemptions related to negotiations, advice, and personnel plans. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope. The Information Commissioner found that TBS failed to demonstrate that disclosing the statistical and dated information would harm negotiations or personnel plans, as claimed under various ATIA exemptions. TBS did not provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the records.

• Applicability of paragraph 18(b) (negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(c) (plans for negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(d) (personnel plans)

The complainant requested specific case information from the Department of Justice Canada (Justice), concerning cases filed with the Tax Court of Canada related to section 245 of the Income Tax Act. Justice withheld the records, citing solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that Justice failed to establish that the identification of the responsive records hinged on privileged information and recommended full disclosure. Justice declined to implement the recommendation.

• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether the identification of responsive records required privileged information
• Whether the information in the iCase database was subject to privilege
• Whether disclosed pleadings would indirectly reveal privileged information

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards under paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the records were primarily factual and did not meet the requirements for either exemption. Although the OIC intended to order the release of the records, IRCC released them voluntarily before the order was issued.

• Whether the Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards constitute 'advice or recommendations' under paragraph 21(1)(a) of the ATIA.
• Whether the records were prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for exemption under section 23 of the ATIA.
• Whether IRCC's search for records was complete.

The complainant requested a contract between Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and a third party, Presidia Security Consulting Inc. The complainant alleged that CSC improperly withheld information under sections 19(1) (personal information) and 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) (third-party commercial information and financial impact), and 21(1)(a) (advice) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under section 19(1), other information was improperly withheld under section 20. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered CSC to release the specific information previously withheld under section 20.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA (personal information).
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the ATIA (third-party commercial information and financial impact).
• Whether paragraph 21(1)(a) of the ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied.
• Whether the institution properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for information concerning Soviet Bloc deception practices. LAC initially withheld the entire record but later released some information, continuing to withhold portions under subsection 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemption, noting that much of the subject matter was already in the public domain. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but LAC stated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Application of subsection 15(1) (national security) exemption
• Availability of information in the public domain
• LAC's failure to demonstrate potential harm from disclosure

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information regarding a 1989 RCMP Security Service briefing on Hugh George Hambleton, citing national security exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that much of the information was already in the public domain, including details of Hambleton's espionage activities and parliamentary discussions. LAC failed to prove that disclosing the remaining information would reasonably be expected to cause harm, making the complaint well-founded.

• Whether the withheld information met the criteria for the national security exemption under subsection 15(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution met its burden of proof to demonstrate potential harm from disclosure.
• The impact of publicly available information on the claim of a national security exemption.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. CSIS initially claimed a 240-day time extension, which the OIC found to be valid. However, CSIS ultimately failed to respond by the extended deadline, leading to the complainant filing a second complaint. The OIC found the complaint to be well-founded due to CSIS's prolonged delay and failure to provide adequate explanations.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Validity of claimed time extension
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)
• Adequacy of reasons for delay

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld GPS coordinates of an RCMP vehicle and records of payments. The investigation focused on the GPS coordinates, which the RCMP claimed were exempt under paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 16(2) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP failed to demonstrate that disclosing the 30-minute GPS data from four years prior met the exemption criteria or that its discretion to withhold was reasonably exercised. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Applicability of paragraph 16(1)(c) to GPS coordinates
• Applicability of subsection 16(2) to GPS coordinates
• Reasonableness of discretion to withhold information
• Timeliness and specificity of the withheld information

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to two access requests within the statutory deadlines. The requests were for records related to CORCAN's Prison Farm program. PSPC claimed significant extensions and ultimately missed the extended deadlines, leading to a "deemed refusal". The OIC found the complaints well founded due to the unreasonable delay.

• Failure to respond within statutory deadlines
• Deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Unreasonable delay in processing access requests
• Impact of COVID-19 on processing times

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Act, claiming disclosure could facilitate the commission of an offence. IRCC redacted information from the "History" field of 64 immigration application records. After an investigation and multiple attempts by IRCC to justify the exemption, the institution ultimately agreed to release all the information. The OIC found the complaints to be well-founded, concluding that IRCC had not justified withholding the information.

• Improper withholding of information
• Application of paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence)
• Justification for exemption
• Disclosure of information in immigration application records