Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) improperly withheld information related to requests for proposals (RFPs) under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including those concerning competitive position, government financial interests, personal information, and third-party financial impact and negotiations. The OPMC failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the cited exemptions, with the Commissioner finding the alleged harms to be speculative. The Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety, and the OPMC indicated it would comply.

• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position/negotiations)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests/undue benefit)
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and if Privacy Act exceptions applied
• Whether the OPMC met the requirements for exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) (third-party financial impact/negotiations)

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) improperly withheld information related to Case No. 17-05835 under several exemptions, including third-party financial information and solicitor-client privilege. The Information Commissioner found that the CTA and a third party failed to demonstrate that the requirements for several exemptions, such as confidential third-party information, were met. The Commissioner ordered the CTA to disclose certain information and to re-exercise its discretion for other withheld records. The CTA agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records related to a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, citing financial impact on a third party. Transport Canada argued that disclosure could lead to public misinterpretation of the preliminary test results. However, the institution and the relevant third party (Ford Canada) did not demonstrate that the exemption requirements were met, especially with the possibility of an explanatory note. The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records in full, along with an explanatory note, finding the complaint well founded.

• Applicability of section 20(1)(c) to preliminary product testing
• Demonstrating material financial impact or competitive harm to a third party
• The role of explanatory notes in mitigating potential harm from disclosure
• Whether public misinterpretation constitutes harm under the Act

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records concerning a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, citing potential financial impact on a third party. Transport Canada initially withheld the records due to concerns about potential misinterpretation, but did not sufficiently demonstrate the harm required for the exemption. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records with an explanatory note, which the institution agreed to implement.

• Whether paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA was properly applied to withhold financial information of a third party.
• Whether subsection 20(4) of the ATIA, which limits the use of paragraph 20(1)(c) for product testing results, applied.
• Whether Transport Canada demonstrated a reasonable expectation of material financial harm or competitive disadvantage to a third party.
• The role and adequacy of an explanatory note in mitigating potential harm from disclosure.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request. LAC extended the response deadline by 639 days to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 974 pages of records. The Information Commissioner found the extension unreasonable, stating LAC did not make a serious effort to assess the necessary length of the extension and relied heavily on CSIS's estimate. The Commissioner ordered LAC to provide a response within 60 business days and recommended updates on consultation timelines.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultation
• LAC's consultation practices
• Timeliness of access to information
• Compliance with ATIP Action Plan commitments

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records concerning the Communist Party of Canada. LAC claimed an 810-day extension to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on nearly 5,000 pages of records. The Commissioner found the extension unreasonable, noting LAC's lack of serious effort to assess the necessary duration and CSIS's lengthy estimated review time. The Commissioner ordered LAC to respond within 60 business days and recommended improvements to consultation timelines.

• Reasonableness of the 810-day extension claimed by LAC
• LAC's consultation process with CSIS
• Timeliness of response to access requests
• LAC's adherence to the Interim Directive on Access to Information

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to a specific contract. The request concerned various documents, including feasibility reports, meeting minutes, and environmental assessments. The Information Commissioner found that some of the requested records, if they exist, were under PSPC's control, and that PSPC had failed to demonstrate a reasonable search. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to seek assistance from a third-party subcontractor to locate and obtain records, provide a new response to the complainant, and disclose any newly found records.

• Control of records held by a third-party subcontractor
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of departmental matters under the ATIA
• Requirement to seek records from third parties

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records concerning a presentation booking and cancellation. Justice claimed a 292-day extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) and a 90-day extension under paragraph 9(1)(b). The Information Commissioner found the 292-day extension unreasonable, citing a lack of justification and a flawed page count. As Justice also failed to respond within the 90-day extension, it was deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered Justice to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Reasonableness of time extension claimed under ATIA s. 9(1)(a)
• Failure to respond within claimed time extension under ATIA s. 9(1)(b)
• Deemed refusal of access under ATIA s. 10(3)
• Flawed process for identifying responsive records and duplicates

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process an access request for all emails of a specific employee. PSPC argued the request lacked sufficient detail. The Information Commissioner found that experienced employees could have identified the records and ordered PSPC to provide a complete response. The Commissioner also recommended training for PSPC employees on information management due to the large volume of emails found.

• Whether the access request provided sufficient detail for experienced institutional employees to identify relevant records with a reasonable effort, as required by section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether PSPC reasonably refused to process the request under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether PSPC failed to respond to the access request within the legislated timeframe.
• Whether PSPC's information management practices are adequate to respond to access requests.

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information related to the lease or sale of its assets, citing exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request was specifically for company names and amounts. PAPA failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of these exemptions. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the requested information concerning company names and amounts.

• Whether PAPA improperly withheld information regarding company names and amounts under various sections of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the withheld information met the criteria for exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether PAPA discharged its burden to prove that the exemptions applied to the withheld information.
• The confidentiality and commercial value of the leased premises information.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to the recovery strategy for the whitebark pine under several sections of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to demonstrate that certain exemptions were met, particularly regarding third-party information and the severing of factual information from exempt advice or deliberations. The Commissioner ordered ECCC to disclose specific records and re-exercise discretion on others, and ECCC agreed to comply with the order.

• Application of exemptions for personal information (s. 19)
• Application of exemptions for third-party information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Application of exemptions for advice/deliberations (s. 21(1)(a) and (b))
• Application of exemptions for federal-provincial affairs (s. 14)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly withheld records concerning cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCAN application, citing exemptions related to facilitating offences and third-party negotiations. During the investigation, CBSA disclosed some records but continued to withhold others under subsection 16(2) and claimed subsection 19(1) for personal information. The Information Commissioner found that while some information properly fell under subsection 16(2), other withheld information did not. Furthermore, CBSA failed to properly consider the disclosure of personal information under subsection 19(1). Although the complaint was found well-founded, the issue was resolved as CBSA released additional information and the complainant was satisfied.

• Applicability of subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence)
• Applicability of paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Proper application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) and the discretion required under subsection 19(2)
• Procedural fairness regarding the submission of representations after an initial report

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) improperly withheld records containing communications between CBC and Twitter employees, citing exemptions related to the safety of individuals and personal information. The OIC found that the CBC failed to demonstrate that disclosing the requested information would reasonably be expected to threaten an individual's safety or facilitate the commission of an offence. The Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose the withheld information.

• Whether the CBC properly applied section 17 (safety of individuals) to withhold records.
• Whether the CBC properly applied subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) to withhold records.
• Whether the CBC properly applied subsection 19(1) (personal information) to withhold records.
• The standard of proof for demonstrating a reasonable expectation of harm under sections 16(2) and 17.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to Taseko Mines Limited’s New Prosperity Project under several exemptions in the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to demonstrate that information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) met the exemption criteria, and that certain information claimed under section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) did not qualify. ECCC has agreed to comply with the order to disclose the specified information. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) interfered with third-party negotiations
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) constituted advice or recommendations
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(b) constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations
• Whether information withheld under section 23 met the criteria for solicitor-client or litigation privilege

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld records concerning the negotiation of a 1991 lease under section 23 of the Access to Information Act, citing solicitor-client and litigation privilege. PSPC applied these exemptions broadly to 96,781 pages of records. The Information Commissioner found that while some information qualified for solicitor-client privilege, PSPC failed to demonstrate that any information met the criteria for litigation privilege. Furthermore, PSPC did not reasonably exercise its discretion in withholding information and failed to perform severance as required by section 25.

• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Application of section 25 (severance)
• Reasonableness of the institution's exercise of discretion
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions