Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information regarding applications and Minimum Safe Manning Documents for the motor vessel Spirit of Vancouver Island, citing personal information and confidential third-party commercial/technical information exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that the personal information exemption was no longer at issue. While some information on page 50 met the criteria for the third-party emergency management plan exemption (paragraph 20(1)(b.1)), the Commissioner found that only the titles and headings of that document should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the third-party commercial/technical information exemption (paragraph 20(1)(b)) was not met for any of the remaining withheld information.

• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b.1) to emergency management plans
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) to confidential third-party information
• Whether Transport Canada properly exercised its discretion regarding disclosure
• Whether the institution met the burden of proof for the exemptions

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint concerning the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's (IRB) improper disclosure of an employee's sensitive medical information to their management team. The IRB shared a "Fitness to Work" report containing intimate medical details without the employee's consent and beyond what was necessary for accommodation. The OPC found that while some information disclosure was consistent with the purpose of collection, the disclosure of highly sensitive medical information was not, thus contravening the Privacy Act. The IRB has since updated its policies and tools, but the OPC found the complaint to be well-founded and not adequately resolved, urging the IRB to implement its recommendations, including training and a meaningful apology.

• Whether the IRB obtained the complainant's consent to disclose their medical information.
• Whether the disclosure of the medical information in the FTW report to management constituted a "consistent use" under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the IRB's disclosure practices complied with the Treasury Board Secretariat's "Standard" on fitness to work evaluations.
• The adequacy of the IRB's response to the OPC's recommendations.

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada's 240-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for correspondence between Public Safety and the RCMP in May 2022. Public Safety could not justify the lengthy extension, as the volume of records was not large and the RCMP's consultation timeline was based on service standards rather than record complexity. The Information Commissioner found the extension invalid, deeming the delay a refusal of access.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA
• Definition of 'large number of records' under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Justification for consultation delays under paragraph 9(1)(b)
• Timeliness of institution's response

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to masks, requested under the Access to Information Act. PHAC initially stated no records existed as an employee deleted their entire email mailbox. During the investigation, PHAC conducted additional searches and found responsive records. The Commissioner found the complaints to be well-founded due to the initial inadequate search.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Disposition of electronic records by an employee
• Institution's obligation to search beyond the employee's direct records
• Information management practices of the institution

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the procurement of new handguns for the military within the 30-day time limit. PSPC did not respond by the due date of July 5, 2021, and cited backlogs, operational challenges, and staffing issues for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, noting that these reasons do not absolve PSPC of its statutory obligation.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Effect of operational challenges and staffing shortages on statutory obligations
• Definition of a "response" under the Act

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day timeframe. DND refused to process the request, believing it did not meet the clarity requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the request did meet the requirements and that DND should have processed it without clarification. DND was therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response to the request, and DND indicated it would comply.

• Whether the access request met the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether National Defence properly refused to process the access request.
• Whether National Defence failed to respond within the time limits set out in the Act.

The complainant alleged that CSIS failed to sufficiently identify which portions of the requested records were redacted and on what basis. CSIS used negative redactions and did not specify exemptions on the records themselves, claiming it could cause harm. The Information Commissioner found this insufficient, recommending CSIS provide a new response clearly identifying withheld portions and citing specific exemptions, cease using negative redactions, and cite exemptions on the records themselves. CSIS agreed to implement these recommendations.

• Adequacy of identification of redacted portions and grounds for withholding.
• Propriety of using negative redactions.
• Requirement to cite exemptions on the records themselves versus in response letters.
• CSIS's obligation to assist the requester.

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The investigation found that the institution misinterpreted the request and relied too heavily on a keyword search. An additional search was ordered, which located 11 pages of previously unreleased records. National Defence has stated it will comply with the order to release these records.

• Reasonableness of search
• Interpretation of access request
• Use of keyword search

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security and international relations) of the Access to Information Act. The records requested were from the Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1989-1995, concerning migration trends and global developments. The OIC found that similar records had been disclosed previously and the information reflected public debate, thus not meeting the requirements of subsection 15(1). LAC disclosed the records in full on January 20, 2023.

• Applicability of subsection 15(1) to records concerning migration trends and global developments
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify withholding records
• Prior disclosure of similar information by the Canadian Government
• Information reflecting public and Parliamentary debate

The complainant requested information related to applications and Minimum Safe Manning (MSM) Documents for the passenger ship Queen of Cumberland. Transport Canada withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information) and 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information). The complainant later withdrew the section 19(1) aspect of the complaint. The Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), ordering the disclosure of all information previously withheld under that provision.

• Whether the withheld information met the criteria for paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA, specifically concerning its technical nature, confidentiality, whether it was supplied by a third party, and if it was consistently treated as confidential by the third party.
• Whether the information was publicly available or observable by passengers, impacting the confidentiality claim.
• Whether the MSI's handwritten notes and the completed MSMDs constituted information supplied by a third party.
• The third party's (BC Ferries) lack of position on the disclosure of the information.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information related to Canadian universities' engagement in the Federal Contractors Program. The withheld information was claimed under sections related to personal information, confidential third-party commercial information, and disclosure restricted by another law. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded, determining that ESDC had not adequately demonstrated that all withheld information met the exemption criteria or that it had properly exercised its discretion. As a result, the Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information at issue, and ESDC indicated it would implement the order.

• Whether information withheld under subsection 19(1) (personal information) was about identifiable individuals and whether discretion was properly exercised.
• Whether a completed Employment Equity Achievement Awards Application Form met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party commercial information).
• Whether information withheld under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) was properly withheld (this was removed from scope).
• Whether the institution properly severed non-exempt information from exempt information.

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly responded to an access request by invoking section 10(2) of the Access to Information Act, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records, and indicating that any responsive records would be withheld under section 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence). The Information Commissioner found that TMC failed to demonstrate that the existence of records itself warranted withholding, especially since TMC had previously acknowledged similar records. Furthermore, TMC did not sufficiently establish that any responsive records would meet the criteria for exemption under section 16(2).

• Proper application of section 10(2) (neither confirm nor deny existence of records)
• Whether the existence or absence of records can itself be information warranting withholding under the Act
• Whether records could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 16(2)
• TMC's inconsistent responses and blanket policy regarding record disclosure