Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation into a complaint that a federal institution failed to provide documents in French. During the investigation, the institution translated and provided the documents to the complainant. The Commissioner determined that continuing the investigation was unnecessary as the complainant had received the documents in their official language of choice.

• Whether the investigation should cease under subsection 30(4)(b) of the ATIA as unnecessary.

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 institution applied for approval to decline acting on an access request for all internal correspondence over seven years, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access. The requester did not make submissions. The Commissioner found the request, due to its overbroad scope in combination with the institution's small size and limited resources, constituted an abuse of the right of access, and granted the institution's application.

• Whether the request constitutes an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) 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 Information Commissioner ceased an investigation into a complaint regarding an institution's search for records. The OIC had previously investigated and issued a final report on an identical matter concerning the institution's search for records from the 1990s. As continuing the investigation was deemed unnecessary and the complainant did not respond to an offer to provide further representations, the investigation was discontinued.

• Whether continuing the investigation was unnecessary
• Whether the matter had already been the subject of a previous investigation or final report

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 Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) wrongly refused to process an access request for emails containing specific keywords, claiming they were not under its control. The emails were stored on ESDC servers and sent using a government account. However, the OIC found that the emails were entirely personal, had no institutional purpose, and were not integrated with ESDC's records. Therefore, the OIC concluded the emails were not under ESDC's control and not subject to the Access to Information Act, resulting in the complaint being not well founded.

• Whether the requested emails were under the control of Employment and Social Development Canada for the purposes of the Access to Information Act.

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

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld the names of employees within the Prime Minister's Office. The information was requested in relation to records concerning an announcement about audits of registered charities for political activities. The OIC found that the withheld names constituted personal information and met the requirements for exemption under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC was also satisfied that none of the exceptions allowing for disclosure under subsection 19(2) applied. Therefore, the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the names of Prime Minister's Office employees constitute personal information under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information fell under exceptions to the definition of personal information.
• Whether the institution properly exercised its discretion to disclose the information under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant requested information regarding legal fees for a specific litigation file from the Department of Justice Canada. The Department withheld expense details and disbursements under section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege), citing solicitor-client privilege and a presumption of privilege for legal bills. The Information Commissioner found that while disbursements are generally presumed privileged, this presumption was rebutted in this case. The Commissioner concluded that the information was not subject to privilege as there was no reasonable possibility that it could be used to deduce protected communications, and recommended its disclosure. The Department of Justice Canada agreed to implement this recommendation.

• Whether section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege) of the ATIA applied to the withheld expense details and disbursements.
• Whether the presumption of privilege for legal bills, as established in Maranda v. Richer, was rebutted.
• Whether the withheld information could be used by an assiduous inquirer to deduce privileged communications.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for information related to the Competition Bureau's bread price-fixing investigation. The request involved over 75 million pages of records. ISED calculated the extension by considering the volume of records, the time needed for the program area to gather records, and the time needed by the Access to Information and Privacy Office to analyze exemptions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint not well founded, agreeing that the extension was reasonable and that ISED followed the proper procedures.

• Whether the extension of time taken by the institution was reasonable under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the request involved a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records.
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations.
• Whether the duration of the extension was reasonable given the circumstances.

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada refused to process an access request for records related to various keywords. Public Safety argued parts of the request did not meet the Act's requirements and processing it would be overly burdensome. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, agreeing that some parts of the request were too vague but that Public Safety improperly refused to process the parts that did meet the criteria. Public Safety Canada committed to processing 5,000 pages per year of the relevant records.

• Adequacy of the request details under section 6 of the ATIA
• Institution's obligation to process requests in parts
• Institution's duty to assist requesters
• Timely processing of large volumes of records