Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for Microsoft Teams messages and related policies. The investigation found that ISED's justification for a 390-day extension was inadequate, as it failed to demonstrate a link between the reasons for the extension and its length, or that a serious attempt was made to assess this length. The OIC also noted significant delays in processing. The Commissioner ordered ISED to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)
• Justification for length of extension for record volume and operational interference
• Justification for length of extension for consultations
• Deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) due to invalid time extension

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld records related to the Canada Student Service Grant. The complainant also alleged that ESDC did not conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that ESDC improperly withheld information under exemptions related to third-party commercial information, advice and deliberations, and solicitor-client privilege. The Commissioner also found that ESDC did not reasonably exercise its discretion for some of these exemptions. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose certain information and re-exercise its discretion on others. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Improperly withheld third-party commercial information
• Improperly withheld advice or recommendations and accounts of deliberations
• Improperly withheld information under solicitor-client privilege
• Failure to reasonably exercise discretion

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information regarding leases valued over $500,000 annually. The complainant sought records for leases signed between 2018-2022 in specific cities. PSPC invoked exemptions under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, claiming harm to its competitive position and the confidentiality of third-party financial information. The Information Commissioner found that neither PSPC nor the third parties established the requirements for these exemptions, noting that rent amounts were negotiated terms and the claims of harm were speculative. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the records in full.

• Whether the annual rent figures for leases were properly withheld under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions).
• Whether the annual rent figures were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial or commercial information).
• Whether the annual rent figures were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (material financial impact on a third party).
• Whether the annual rent figures were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with third-party negotiations).

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning a specific video posted on Facebook. During the investigation, it was found that ISC had initially excluded records interpreted as drafts, leading to the retrieval of 1,087 additional pages. The Information Commissioner found the original search unreasonable but concluded that ISC had since conducted a reasonable search. The Commissioner ordered ISC to process and respond to the additional records within 36 business days.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Interpretation and application of exclusion criteria for records

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information related to a meeting, citing exemptions under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that PCO failed to demonstrate that a signature and two initials, withheld under subsection 19(1), met the requirements of the exemption, particularly considering they related to official duties and transparency. Although PCO initially applied subsection 16(2) to a phone number, the OIC concluded this exemption was met. However, the OIC ordered PCO to disclose the information withheld under subsection 19(1).

• Application of subsection 16(2) to a phone number
• Application of subsection 19(1) to signatures and initials
• Whether signatures/initials used for official duties are excluded from the definition of personal information under paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act
• Reasonableness of the institution's exercise of discretion to withhold information

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to a workplace fatality under several exemptions, including personal information and third-party commercial/technical information. The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted a reasonable search. The OIC found that while the initial search was not reasonable, it was resolved during the investigation. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose certain information that did not meet the criteria for third-party exemptions, and re-exercise discretion on other withheld information.

• Proper application of the personal information exemption (s.19(1) ATIA).
• Proper application of third-party information exemptions (s.20(1)(b) and (c) ATIA).
• Proper application of investigation conduct exemption (s.16(1)(c) ATIA).
• Reasonableness of the search for records.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information concerning intelligence committee meetings from 1972, citing exemptions related to confidential government information, international affairs, national security, investigative bodies, and personal information. PCO released some information during the investigation but continued to withhold other records. The Information Commissioner found that PCO had not met the requirements for most of the claimed exemptions, particularly given the age of the records and the fact that similar information had been previously disclosed publicly. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered PCO to release most of the remaining withheld information and to re-exercise discretion on a few specific pages.

• Timeliness of exemption claims for historical records
• Demonstration of reasonable expectation of harm
• Public domain status of information
• Proper exercise of discretion