Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

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 information regarding Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979, citing exemptions related to confidential government information and international affairs. Although PCO agreed to release some information during the investigation, it continued to withhold other details. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to properly justify the continued withholding of information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but PCO stated it would not implement this recommendation.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence)
• PCO's justification for withholding titles of Liaison Officers and CSE employees
• PCO's justification for withholding distribution markings and intelligence report titles

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.