Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Access to Information Act in response to 64 separate access requests. The withheld information was located in the "History" field of IRCC's GCMS Information Request: Application, which IRCC initially claimed would facilitate the commission of an offence if disclosed. IRCC argued that releasing this audit trail could allow individuals to manipulate immigration programs. The OIC investigated, finding that IRCC had not established a reasonable expectation of harm beyond a mere possibility, and the causal link between disclosure and facilitating an offence was too remote. After extensive discussions, IRCC ultimately agreed to release the information in its entirety. Although the information was released, the Commissioner found the complaints to be well founded because IRCC was not justified in its initial withholding.

• Whether s.16(2)(c) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied to information in the "History" field of GCMS records
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm beyond a mere possibility if the information was disclosed
• Whether a causal link existed between the disclosure of information and the facilitation of an offence

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, the Creative Salmon Company Ltd., or jaundice syndrome, claiming exemptions under paragraphs 18(c), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DFO failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish their findings first, as required by paragraph 18(c). Furthermore, neither DFO nor the third party, Creative Salmon Ltd., established that the information was confidential, supplied by the third party, or consistently treated as confidential, as required by paragraph 20(1)(b). The OIC also concluded that DFO and Creative Salmon Ltd. did not show a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or harm to competitive position from disclosure, as claimed under paragraph 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the information, with the exception of personal information. DFO agreed to implement the recommendations, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the information was scientific or technical
• Whether the information was obtained through research by a government employee or officer
• Whether disclosing the information could threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish the results of their research first
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.18(c)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(c)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether disclosing the information could result in substantial financial loss or gain to the third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or gain under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether disclosing the information could injure the competitive position of the third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of injury to competitive position under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether DFO should have considered disclosure under subsection 20(6) for public health, safety, or environmental protection reasons

The complainant submitted an access to information request to a federal institution and received a response in October 2021. The institution's response included a notice informing the complainant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days. The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) in January 2022, which was more than sixty days after receiving the institution's response. The OIC determined that the complaint was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe specified in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner concluded that the OIC does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe as per s.31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint