Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request. LAC extended the response deadline by 639 days to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 974 pages of records. The Information Commissioner found the extension unreasonable, stating LAC did not make a serious effort to assess the necessary length of the extension and relied heavily on CSIS's estimate. The Commissioner ordered LAC to provide a response within 60 business days and recommended updates on consultation timelines.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultation
• LAC's consultation practices
• Timeliness of access to information
• Compliance with ATIP Action Plan commitments

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records concerning a presentation booking and cancellation. Justice claimed a 292-day extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) and a 90-day extension under paragraph 9(1)(b). The Information Commissioner found the 292-day extension unreasonable, citing a lack of justification and a flawed page count. As Justice also failed to respond within the 90-day extension, it was deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered Justice to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Reasonableness of time extension claimed under ATIA s. 9(1)(a)
• Failure to respond within claimed time extension under ATIA s. 9(1)(b)
• Deemed refusal of access under ATIA s. 10(3)
• Flawed process for identifying responsive records and duplicates

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 records concerning the Communist Party of Canada. LAC claimed an 810-day extension to consult with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on nearly 5,000 pages of records. The Commissioner found the extension unreasonable, noting LAC's lack of serious effort to assess the necessary duration and CSIS's lengthy estimated review time. The Commissioner ordered LAC to respond within 60 business days and recommended improvements to consultation timelines.

• Reasonableness of the 810-day extension claimed by LAC
• LAC's consultation process with CSIS
• Timeliness of response to access requests
• LAC's adherence to the Interim Directive on Access to Information

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to a specific contract. The request concerned various documents, including feasibility reports, meeting minutes, and environmental assessments. The Information Commissioner found that some of the requested records, if they exist, were under PSPC's control, and that PSPC had failed to demonstrate a reasonable search. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to seek assistance from a third-party subcontractor to locate and obtain records, provide a new response to the complainant, and disclose any newly found records.

• Control of records held by a third-party subcontractor
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of departmental matters under the ATIA
• Requirement to seek records from third parties

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process an access request for all emails of a specific employee. PSPC argued the request lacked sufficient detail. The Information Commissioner found that experienced employees could have identified the records and ordered PSPC to provide a complete response. The Commissioner also recommended training for PSPC employees on information management due to the large volume of emails found.

• Whether the access request provided sufficient detail for experienced institutional employees to identify relevant records with a reasonable effort, as required by section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether PSPC reasonably refused to process the request under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether PSPC failed to respond to the access request within the legislated timeframe.
• Whether PSPC's information management practices are adequate to respond to access requests.

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information related to the lease or sale of its assets, citing exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request was specifically for company names and amounts. PAPA failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of these exemptions. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the requested information concerning company names and amounts.

• Whether PAPA improperly withheld information regarding company names and amounts under various sections of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the withheld information met the criteria for exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether PAPA discharged its burden to prove that the exemptions applied to the withheld information.
• The confidentiality and commercial value of the leased premises information.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to the recovery strategy for the whitebark pine under several sections of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to demonstrate that certain exemptions were met, particularly regarding third-party information and the severing of factual information from exempt advice or deliberations. The Commissioner ordered ECCC to disclose specific records and re-exercise discretion on others, and ECCC agreed to comply with the order.

• Application of exemptions for personal information (s. 19)
• Application of exemptions for third-party information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Application of exemptions for advice/deliberations (s. 21(1)(a) and (b))
• Application of exemptions for federal-provincial affairs (s. 14)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly withheld records concerning cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCAN application, citing exemptions related to facilitating offences and third-party negotiations. During the investigation, CBSA disclosed some records but continued to withhold others under subsection 16(2) and claimed subsection 19(1) for personal information. The Information Commissioner found that while some information properly fell under subsection 16(2), other withheld information did not. Furthermore, CBSA failed to properly consider the disclosure of personal information under subsection 19(1). Although the complaint was found well-founded, the issue was resolved as CBSA released additional information and the complainant was satisfied.

• Applicability of subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence)
• Applicability of paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party)
• Proper application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) and the discretion required under subsection 19(2)
• Procedural fairness regarding the submission of representations after an initial report