Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

This investigation examined allegations that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) inappropriately disclosed an adopted child's adoptive name, and the adoptive mother's personal information, to the child's biological mother. The OPC found that, on the balance of probabilities, the CRA likely disclosed the child's adoptive name, contravening section 8 of the Privacy Act. Deficiencies were also identified in the CRA's internal procedures for safeguarding adopted children's personal information. The complaint was found to be well-founded but not resolved, as the CRA agreed to implement some, but not all, of the OPC's recommendations.

• Whether the CRA disclosed the child's adoptive name and the adoptive mother's personal information to the biological mother without consent.
• Whether the CRA's internal procedures adequately protected the personal information of adopted children.
• Whether the CRA's actions contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the complaint was resolved based on the CRA's response to the OPC's recommendations.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search for Microsoft Teams messages related to ArriveCAN. CBSA's policy retains these messages for only 30 days, but an administrative error delayed the processing of the request beyond this period, leading officials to believe no records existed. Although CBSA later found one relevant record in its corporate repositories during the investigation, the initial delay meant a reasonable search was not conducted at the time of the request. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Timeliness of request processing
• Impact of administrative errors on the right of access
• Proper retention and retrieval of electronic records

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly denied access to personal information related to five grievances, relying on exceptions under the Privacy Act. The OPC found that while the CRA conducted reasonable searches, it failed to adequately substantiate its use of paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Act to withhold information. Much of the withheld information was transactional and did not demonstrate a clear risk of harm upon disclosure. The complaint was found to be well-founded, but unresolved, as the CRA maintained its position on the withheld information.

• Proper application of paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act regarding risk of harm.
• Adequacy of government institution's searches for responsive records.
• Substantiation of claims for withholding information under statutory exemptions.
• Requirement for case-by-case assessment when applying exemptions.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to rail workplace fatality investigation reports. The request was for copies of all such reports completed since January 2000. The Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada failed to demonstrate that the exemptions for personal information (s.19) and third-party commercial/financial/technical information (s.20) were properly applied in all instances. Specifically, Transport Canada did not reasonably exercise its discretion regarding publicly available personal information and failed to justify withholding certain third-party information.

• Proper application of the personal information exemption (s.19 ATIA)
• Proper application of the third-party commercial, financial, or technical information exemption (s.20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Proper application of the third-party financial impact or competitive harm exemption (s.20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information related to campfires and air quality, citing exemptions for personal information and financial impact on third parties. Health Canada initially withheld names and short texts about third parties under the financial impact exemption. However, the third parties did not provide evidence of material financial harm, and one explicitly stated disclosure would not cause harm. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering Health Canada to disclose the withheld information.

• Whether information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) met the requirements of the exemption.
• Whether third parties demonstrated a material financial impact or harm to their competitive position.
• Whether disclosure was in the public interest and outweighed potential harm.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to an investigation into an accidental death. The request was for the final investigation report. Transport Canada withheld information claiming exemptions for law enforcement, personal information, and confidential third-party commercial information. The Information Commissioner found that the institution and the third party failed to demonstrate that the exemptions applied to certain information, ordering disclosure of the incident number and other non-exempt records. Transport Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Applicability of paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement and conduct of investigations)
• Applicability of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Applicability of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party commercial information)
• Burden of proof on the institution and third party to justify exemptions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act, related to applications for legal funding. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP had improperly withheld information under sections 13(1)(a) and (c), 14, 15(1), and 23 (solicitor-client privilege). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose this information and to seek consent from the British Columbia government for certain records. The RCMP indicated they would not fully implement the order, leading the Commissioner to find the complaint well-founded.

• Application of exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies (s. 13)
• Application of exemptions related to federal-provincial affairs (s. 14)
• Application of exemptions related to international affairs (s. 15)
• Application of solicitor-client privilege (s. 23)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld employee time sheets under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The CRA claimed the information, related to a period of a labour strike, could identify employees who participated in the strike. The Information Commissioner found that while the User ID and PRI would reveal strike participation, the remaining time sheet data (date, attendance type, hours, etc.) did not meet the threshold for identifying individuals, as the CRA's evidence was speculative and the large number of employees made identification unlikely. The Commissioner ordered the CRA to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1).

• Whether time sheet information from a period coinciding with a labour strike could identify employees participating in the strike.
• Whether the CRA demonstrated a serious possibility of identification for the remaining time sheet data.
• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information regarding equipment leases under several exemptions, including financial and commercial information, and that PAPA did not conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that PAPA failed to demonstrate that the rental rate information met the requirements for the financial impact exemption (paragraph 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner was satisfied that PAPA conducted a reasonable search for records. PAPA was ordered to disclose the redacted rental rate information.

• Whether the withheld rental rate information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the institution properly applied exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the National Research Council Canada (NRC) improperly withheld information concerning negotiations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) regarding overtime conversion. The NRC claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the NRC failed to meet the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(c) for most of the withheld information, but upheld the exemption under section 23 for specific legal advice. The Commissioner ordered the release of the information improperly withheld under the other provisions. The NRC has indicated it will implement the order.

• Whether information concerning negotiations with a third party was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d).
• Whether information constituted advice or recommendations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a).
• Whether information constituted positions or plans for negotiations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(c).
• Whether information was subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 23.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The records concerned data analyzed in a Sea Lice Science Response Report. Neither DFO nor the third parties could demonstrate that the information met the requirements for the exemption, including objectivity or that it was supplied by a third party. A section 26 exemption was also considered and dismissed. The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to fully disclose the records.

• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party.
• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of section 26 of the ATIA (information to be published).

This investigation examined complaints regarding the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's (NSIRA) Secretariat's request for access to polygraph records as part of a review of the Communications Security Establishment. The OPC found that the anonymization measures significantly reduced re-identification risks, and the polygraph recordings themselves contained no personal information. However, concerns were raised about the timeliness of the Secretariat's requests to Treasury Board Secretariat for approval of Personal Information Banks (PIBs). The collection issue was found not well-founded, but the timeliness of PIB updates was found well-founded and subsequently resolved.

• Whether the NSIRA Secretariat collected personal information without a direct relationship to its operating programs or activities.
• Whether the NSIRA Secretariat complied with its obligations to include all personal information under its control in Personal Information Banks (PIBs).
• Assessment of privacy mitigation measures implemented by CSE to anonymize polygraph records.
• Timeliness of the NSIRA Secretariat's requests for PIB approvals and publication of its Info Source page.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning housing guides and criteria for Indigenous communities from 1960 to 1990. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found the search was initially unreasonable, as ISC failed to retrieve all relevant records. After further searches prompted by the OIC, 800 pages of responsive records were identified. The OIC ordered ISC to release records promptly, with a final response to follow.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Identification and retrieval of all responsive records.
• Timeliness of interim and final responses to the access request.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information from the "Rodal report" under several exemptions. Initially, LAC withheld information under sections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1)(c), and 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, LAC released most of the information, abandoning reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23. The OIC found that LAC could not initially demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of section 13(1). However, the OIC was satisfied that LAC properly withheld information under section 15(1) after reasonable exercise of discretion, and that the information met the requirements of section 13(1). The complaint was found to be well-founded because LAC improperly withheld information initially.

• Whether information was properly withheld under section 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 15(1) (international affairs, defence).
• Whether LAC properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.
• Whether LAC properly ceased reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld records related to Tetra Tech under exemptions related to confidential third-party information and accounts of deliberations. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada failed to demonstrate that certain withheld information met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) because it was publicly available, not supplied by the third party, or not objectively confidential. However, the Commissioner found that Health Canada properly exercised its discretion in withholding information under paragraph 21(1)(b). The complaint was found to be well-founded regarding the paragraph 20(1)(b) exemptions.

• Confidentiality of third-party information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Accounts of consultations or deliberations (s. 21(1)(b) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of discretion in withholding information