Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act, related to applications for legal funding. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP had improperly withheld information under sections 13(1)(a) and (c), 14, 15(1), and 23 (solicitor-client privilege). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose this information and to seek consent from the British Columbia government for certain records. The RCMP indicated they would not fully implement the order, leading the Commissioner to find the complaint well-founded.

• Application of exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies (s. 13)
• Application of exemptions related to federal-provincial affairs (s. 14)
• Application of exemptions related to international affairs (s. 15)
• Application of solicitor-client privilege (s. 23)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld employee time sheets under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The CRA claimed the information, related to a period of a labour strike, could identify employees who participated in the strike. The Information Commissioner found that while the User ID and PRI would reveal strike participation, the remaining time sheet data (date, attendance type, hours, etc.) did not meet the threshold for identifying individuals, as the CRA's evidence was speculative and the large number of employees made identification unlikely. The Commissioner ordered the CRA to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1).

• Whether time sheet information from a period coinciding with a labour strike could identify employees participating in the strike.
• Whether the CRA demonstrated a serious possibility of identification for the remaining time sheet data.
• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information regarding equipment leases under several exemptions, including financial and commercial information, and that PAPA did not conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that PAPA failed to demonstrate that the rental rate information met the requirements for the financial impact exemption (paragraph 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner was satisfied that PAPA conducted a reasonable search for records. PAPA was ordered to disclose the redacted rental rate information.

• Whether the withheld rental rate information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the institution properly applied exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the National Research Council Canada (NRC) improperly withheld information concerning negotiations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) regarding overtime conversion. The NRC claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the NRC failed to meet the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(c) for most of the withheld information, but upheld the exemption under section 23 for specific legal advice. The Commissioner ordered the release of the information improperly withheld under the other provisions. The NRC has indicated it will implement the order.

• Whether information concerning negotiations with a third party was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d).
• Whether information constituted advice or recommendations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a).
• Whether information constituted positions or plans for negotiations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(c).
• Whether information was subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 23.

An institution applied under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act for approval to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they constituted an abuse of the right to request information. The institution claimed the requests would overburden its operations, were repetitive, and intended to gain an advantage in legal proceedings. The Information Commissioner denied the application, finding the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. The Commissioner noted the broad scope of the requests but concluded the institution failed to demonstrate they were an abuse of the Act.

• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access by overburdening the institution.
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access due to their repetitive nature.
• Whether the purpose of the access requests was other than obtaining documents or information.
• Sufficiency of evidence provided by the institution regarding the estimated volume of records and operational impact.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The records concerned data analyzed in a Sea Lice Science Response Report. Neither DFO nor the third parties could demonstrate that the information met the requirements for the exemption, including objectivity or that it was supplied by a third party. A section 26 exemption was also considered and dismissed. The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to fully disclose the records.

• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party.
• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of section 26 of the ATIA (information to be published).