Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not conduct a reasonable search for a draft report prepared by the Northgate Group. The investigation found that ECCC overwrote the original draft report by saving edits directly to the USB key it was provided on. This action meant the original draft report no longer exists and could not be produced, irreversibly undermining the complainant's right of access. The OIC found the complaint well-founded, noting the importance of preserving records for transparency and accountability.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Duty to preserve records of business value
• Impact of record destruction on the right of access

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) did not conduct a reasonable search for driving data, including GPS and logbook information from its fleet vehicles. The OIC investigation found that NRCan had failed to search for GPS data stored by a third-party data storage company, which was determined to be under NRCan's control. NRCan later retrieved this data and additional logbook records, which were provided to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of 'control' of records held by a third party

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the APEC conference, trade agreements, and the Hughes Inquiry. The department initially stated no records could be found. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that the appropriate sector was not tasked until much later, eventually leading to the retrieval of over 41,000 pages. The Information Commissioner found the initial search unreasonable.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Timeliness of the institution's response.
• Adequacy of the institution's estimate for processing remaining records.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. LAC initially claimed a 565-day extension, which was previously found to be reasonable. However, LAC missed the extended deadline of September 18, 2020. The Information Commissioner found that LAC was in deemed refusal and ordered the institution to complete the processing of the request forthwith.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)
• Adequacy of reasons for delay
• LAC's obligations under the Access to Information Act

The complainant requested all records of misconduct by an identified individual from the Department of National Defence (DND). DND refused to process the request, claiming it did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DND's representations were insufficient to demonstrate the request lacked detail and noted that exemptions for personal information or privacy concerns under the Privacy Act do not invalidate a request under the Access to Information Act. DND ultimately conceded the request met the requirements of section 6 and agreed to process it.

• Whether the request provided sufficient detail to identify records under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether exemptions under section 19 of the ATIA or the Privacy Act can invalidate a request under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether the ATIA applies notwithstanding other Acts of Parliament.

The complainant alleged that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) improperly withheld the names and service numbers of Arctic Star recipients under section 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. VAC initially withheld some information but disclosed a portion during the investigation. The Information Commissioner consulted the Privacy Commissioner, who agreed that the information could be released as it fell under an exception to the Privacy Act's definition of "personal information." VAC agreed to release the remaining undisclosed information.

• Whether the names and service numbers of Arctic Star recipients constitute "personal information" under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information falls under an exception to the definition of "personal information" in the Privacy Act.
• The applicability of subsection 19(1) to historical military service information.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) claimed an unreasonable 29,200-day time extension to process a request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records. LAC identified 780,000 responsive pages but did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. As a result, LAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3). The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the time extension claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the ATIA.
• Whether LAC met the criteria for claiming a time extension due to volume.
• LAC's failure to provide adequate justification for the length of the extension.
• Application of subsection 10(3) regarding deemed refusal of access.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to a Request for Proposals (RFP) under various ATIA exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to properly exercise discretion regarding publicly available personal information and some commercial/financial information. While certain advice, recommendations, and specific third-party commercial/financial information were properly withheld, other portions were not sufficiently justified as confidential or likely to cause harm. ECCC agreed to implement the Commissioner's recommendations.

• Proper exercise of discretion for publicly available personal information (s.19(2) ATIA)
• Justification for withholding commercial/financial information under s.20(1)(b) and s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Application of advice/recommendations exemption (s.21(1)(a) ATIA)
• Confidentiality of information provided in response to an RFP

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) wrongly stated it could not process an access request for records concerning a named employee, such as leave dates, job grade, and salary history. ESDC initially claimed these records, being the personal information of another individual, were outside its control. The OIC found that while the records did contain personal information, they were nevertheless under ESDC's control as they related to institutional operations and employment purposes. ESDC ultimately agreed to process the request.

• Control of records
• Definition of 'under the control' of an institution

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld an inmate's carceral file under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The investigation found that CSC had not retrieved or processed the records before applying the exemption, meaning they could not justify withholding the information. The Information Commissioner recommended CSC retrieve, process, and respond to the request, a recommendation CSC agreed to implement.

• Application of subsection 19(1) of the ATIA (personal information)
• Proper retrieval and processing of records before applying exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA
• Duty to sever non-exempt information under section 25 of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to mediation services provided by the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (CICR) under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while the third party's hourly rate and hours billed were properly withheld, the description of services, dates, subtotals, taxes, total amount, and amount paid were not. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose this latter information, and the Minister agreed to implement the order.

• Applicability of paragraph 20(1)(b) to financial and commercial information.
• Confidentiality of information provided by a third party.
• Discretionary application of exemptions by the institution.
• Requirement for information to be supplied by a third party.

The complainant requested information from Health Canada regarding problems with implantable medical devices. Health Canada failed to respond within the extended time limit and was deemed to have refused access. The institution faced delays due to third-party objections and a judicial review application, which was later withdrawn. The Information Commissioner recommended that Health Canada provide a final response to the complainant by May 26, 2021, and the Minister agreed to implement this recommendation.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Deemed refusal of access
• Impact of third-party objections and judicial review on processing
• Timeliness of final response

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. LAC took an extensive extension but still missed the deadline, resulting in a deemed refusal. The delay was partly due to a consultation with CSIS and LAC's lack of infrastructure to process Top Secret records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well founded, recommending immediate action and a permanent solution for processing classified records.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits.
• Validity of 425-day time extension.
• LAC's lack of infrastructure to process classified records.
• Deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for COVID-19 related contracts within the statutory time limit. PSPC cited pandemic measures as a reason for the delay. The Information Commissioner found that institutions cannot suspend access request processing due to the pandemic and that PSPC failed to respond within the required timeframe. Therefore, the complaint was deemed well-founded, and PSPC is considered to have refused access.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit
• Justification for delay due to pandemic measures
• Application of subsection 10(3) of the ATIA (deemed refusal)

This report details a systemic investigation into Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) handling of access to information requests, particularly for immigration application files. The investigation found that IRCC's practice of automatically extending response times for frequent requesters violated the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner made five recommendations to improve IRCC's processes, including ceasing this practice, developing a work plan for performance improvements, enhancing the availability of client information through other means, and securing adequate resources for the ATIP office.

• Timeliness of response to access to information requests
• Proper application of time extension provisions under the ATIA
• Systemic issues in processing high volumes of access requests
• Accessibility of immigration application information through alternative channels