Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security and international relations) of the Access to Information Act. The records requested were from the Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1989-1995, concerning migration trends and global developments. The OIC found that similar records had been disclosed previously and the information reflected public debate, thus not meeting the requirements of subsection 15(1). LAC disclosed the records in full on January 20, 2023.

• Applicability of subsection 15(1) to records concerning migration trends and global developments
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify withholding records
• Prior disclosure of similar information by the Canadian Government
• Information reflecting public and Parliamentary debate

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access to information request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access records. The requester sought all emails, text messages, and computer files from three HR employees. The Commissioner found the request was overly broad, placed an undue burden on the institution, and impeded the rights of others, thus constituting an abuse of the right to access records. The Commissioner also found the institution had met its duty to assist the requester prior to making the application.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the request was vexatious.

The complainant requested information related to applications and Minimum Safe Manning (MSM) Documents for the passenger ship Queen of Cumberland. Transport Canada withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information) and 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information). The complainant later withdrew the section 19(1) aspect of the complaint. The Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), ordering the disclosure of all information previously withheld under that provision.

• Whether the withheld information met the criteria for paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA, specifically concerning its technical nature, confidentiality, whether it was supplied by a third party, and if it was consistently treated as confidential by the third party.
• Whether the information was publicly available or observable by passengers, impacting the confidentiality claim.
• Whether the MSI's handwritten notes and the completed MSMDs constituted information supplied by a third party.
• The third party's (BC Ferries) lack of position on the disclosure of the information.