Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for specific reports and recommendations within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the extended deadline and is therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to complete the retrieval and provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a "response" under the Act
• Consequences of failing to respond within the statutory time limits

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a specific standing offer. PHAC claimed an extension of 255 days due to the volume of records, citing a need for 180 days under paragraph 9(1)(a). The Commissioner found that PHAC failed to demonstrate that the 180-day extension was reasonable, as it did not show sufficient rigour in calculating the time needed. Consequently, the extension was deemed invalid, and PHAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
• Definition of a 'large number of records'
• Adequacy of justification for processing time
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) improperly withheld information related to payment requests from Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG). The request sought official documents from January 2016 to March 2019. While the complainant later narrowed the complaint, the investigation focused on exemptions related to third-party financial information and disclosure restrictions. The Commissioner found that only information concerning pricing and contractual relationships met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

• Application of section 20(1)(c) regarding financial impact on a third party.
• Application of section 20(1)(b) regarding confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information.
• Application of section 24(1) regarding disclosure restricted by another law.
• Burden of proof for third-party exemptions.

The complainant alleged that the time National Defence (DND) took to respond to an access request regarding military equipment sent to Ukraine was unreasonable. The OIC found that DND did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension. DND was deemed to have refused access. Following discussions facilitated by the OIC, the complainant narrowed the scope of the request, and DND then estimated a six-month response time. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response by November 25, 2024.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether DND met the requirements for a time extension due to volume of records under paragraph 9(1)(a).
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) due to failure to respond within the extended period.
• Impact of narrowing the request on the response timeline.

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request. The request was for communications related to designated projects in Western Canada. IAAC extended the response time by 880 days, but the Information Commissioner found that IAAC did not adequately justify the length of this extension, particularly under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the Commissioner deemed the extension invalid, ordered IAAC to respond by April 23, 2025, and found the complaint to be well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the 880-day time extension under subsection 9(1)(a) of the ATIA
• Whether IAAC demonstrated sufficient rigour in calculating the extension period
• Whether IAAC's delay constituted a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit. The request concerned specific documents related to past litigation. The investigation found that CIRNAC did not respond by the deadline and was therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner found the delay by the Resolution & Partnerships unit in retrieving records unacceptable and ordered CIRNAC to provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit
• Delay in retrieving records by an Office of Primary Interest (OPI)
• Definition of a 'response' under the Act

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request for specific historical files within the extended time limit. The investigation found that LAC did not respond by the required date, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The delay was attributed to the ATIP office's failure to process the request in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered LAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days, but LAC indicated it would not be implementing the order due to existing workload.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limits.
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act.
• The institution's obligation to respond to an access request even when deemed to have refused.
• The institution's notice of non-implementation of the Commissioner's order.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning Ops 3 and Ops 4 files. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that PCO's initial search was insufficient, as only two pages of responsive records were initially provided. Following the investigation, PCO conducted a further search and identified 251 additional pages of responsive records. The Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by December 22, 2024.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of the records provided in response to the access request

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the funding and fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations from the Deputy Minister's Office. The investigation revealed deficiencies in CIRNAC's search efforts, indicating that not all likely locations for records were searched. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CIRNAC to conduct a new search and provide a response to the complainant.

• Definition of a reasonable search
• Completeness of search efforts across different sectors
• Accessibility of records due to system changes
• Evidence of record existence despite limited disclosure

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period. The request concerned records referenced in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Despite Health Canada receiving over 20,000 pages of responsive records and needing to conduct consultations, the Information Commissioner found their proposed response date of July 17, 2030, to be unreasonable given the significant delays already incurred. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to provide a complete response by April 7, 2026.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Reasonableness of proposed response date
• Impact of record volume and consultations on processing time
• Definition of a complete response

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under the Access to Information Act's personal information exemption and failed to conduct a reasonable search. DND conceded it had not always properly applied the exemption and provided supplementary disclosure. The Information Commissioner found that while the remaining withheld information met the exemption criteria, DND's initial search was not reasonable as it failed to pursue all avenues to locate responsive records, including those lost due to poor information management practices. The Commissioner recommended improved training on information management.

• Proper application of the personal information exemption (section 19(1) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Adequacy of information management practices
• Burden of proof for withholding information

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the legislated time limits, even after an extension. The request was for records concerning meetings and lobbying efforts by the Pathways Alliance Inc. The investigation found that ECCC did not provide a response by the extended deadline due to significant delays by internal offices in retrieving records. The Commissioner ordered ECCC to provide a response by a specific date and recommended improvements to internal processes for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the extended period.
• Delays in retrieving responsive records from internal program areas.
• Need for improved processes and accountability for timely record retrieval within the institution.

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documents related to Operation Safe Haven. The Information Commissioner found that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond within the timeframe, deeming access refused. The Commissioner specifically cited unacceptable delays by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command in retrieving records. An order was issued for National Defence to provide a complete response within 60 business days, along with recommendations for improving internal processes and accountability for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond within the statutory 30-day period
• Unacceptable delay in retrieving records from an Office of Primary Interest (CFINTCOM)
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Need for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision

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)