Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning emails related to a CSIS Issues Management Brief on foreign interference activity. The initial search by PCO yielded no relevant records from most offices, leading the complainant to provide evidence suggesting that PCO should hold such records. Following this, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) requested PCO to conduct a second search. This subsequent search located 11 pages of additional relevant records within PCO's Security and Intelligence Unit. The OIC concluded that PCO's initial search was not reasonable. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a new response to the access request, including access to the newly found records, subject to any applicable exemptions. PCO confirmed its intention to implement the order.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records under s.30(1)(a) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period mandated by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought specific records related to 'A220 Committees' and the 'Assessment Review Group'. The investigation confirmed that CSE did not respond by the due date, July 26, 2023, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to the untimely review of records and the failure to develop consultation packages for other relevant institutions. Despite having received approximately 1,600 pages of responsive records, CSE had not digitized them or initiated necessary consultations, anticipating a response by January 24, 2025. The Information Commissioner found this delay unacceptable and ordered CSE to provide a complete response within 72 business days. CSE, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order and would instead seek a review by the Federal Court.

• Whether Communications Security Establishment Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Communications Security Establishment Canada was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay in processing the request was acceptable

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought information, including emails, reports, flight logs, and cargo manifests, related to Canadian government-owned planes landing in Lebanon between October 7 and December 5, 2023. DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that the delay was due to a lack of responsiveness from two Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) within DND, preventing the Directorate of Access to Information and Privacy from processing the request. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 60 business days. DND subsequently agreed to implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a high number of complaints alleging delays in responding to access requests, particularly for immigration application information. The investigation found a dramatic increase in requests to CBSA for records stored in the Global Case Management System (GCMS), which is also accessed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). This surge was attributed to IRCC's failure to implement an effective system for clients to directly retrieve their immigration information, leading requesters to file identical requests with both institutions. Despite CBSA's efforts to increase funding, implement automation, and improve consistency and collaboration, the Commissioner found that CBSA must continue to find ways to meet its obligations under the Act, as the root cause (IRCC's system deficiencies) is outside its control. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

• Whether Canada Border Services Agency failed to respond to access requests within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the increase in access requests to Canada Border Services Agency for immigration application information is due to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's lack of an effective system for direct client information retrieval
• Whether Canada Border Services Agency's current measures are sufficient to address the high volume of access requests and backlog

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a list of grants and contributions, including assistance type and other details, approved under specific ISED programs. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding paragraph 20(1)(c). ISED argued that disclosing the assistance type would harm its negotiating position by allowing companies to compare terms and seek more favorable conditions, thereby interfering with future negotiations. However, the Commissioner found that ISED failed to demonstrate how the release of this information would cause further harm, as similar information was already publicly available. The Commissioner concluded that ISED did not meet the requirements of paragraph 18(b) and ordered the disclosure of the withheld information. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA applied to information regarding the assistance type of grants and contributions
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of a government institution
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to the competitive position
• Whether contractual or other negotiations were under way or would be conducted in the future
• Whether disclosure could interfere with negotiations
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations
• Whether ISED properly exercised its discretion under s.18(b)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought correspondence related to a hiring process for a General Safety Officer position at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, including information about the anticipated re-hire of a named individual. DND received the request on April 3, 2023, and did not extend the deadline or transfer the request, making the due date May 3, 2023. The investigation found that DND did not respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to a lack of responsiveness from one of the Offices of Primary Interest within DND. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request within 36 business days of the final report. DND subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA due to delay

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records related to 'Project Anecdote'. LAC extended the time by 23,725 days (approximately 65 years), citing the need to digitize 780,000 pages of records and conduct consultations. The Commissioner found that LAC did not adequately demonstrate why the processing would be limited to a single employee, why tasks were calculated consecutively rather than concurrently, or why the extension period was reasonable. Furthermore, LAC could not specify the exact number of records requiring consultation, making the consultation extension unreasonable. Consequently, the Commissioner found the extension invalid, deeming LAC to have refused access to the records. The complaint was well founded, and LAC was ordered to respond forthwith and provide regular updates and interim releases.

• Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(a) ATIA for volume of records was for a reasonable period
• Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(b) ATIA for consultations was for a reasonable period
• Whether the institution's calculation of processing time based on a single employee was reasonable
• Whether the institution's calculation of processing time based on consecutive tasks was reasonable
• Whether the institution adequately justified the length of the extension claimed