Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned records related to aircraft operations and restrictions. The investigation found that the institution took three months to locate potentially responsive records, leading to an unacceptable delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limit.
• Unacceptable delay in locating and processing responsive records.
• Whether the institution met its obligations under section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit. The complainant also alleged that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to meet its obligations to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to assist the complainant. Justice also failed to respond within the time limit, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner ordered Justice to remove the hold, provide a complete response by May 17, 2029, and provide regular updates and interim releases.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (s. 7 ATIA)
• Improperly placing an access request on hold
• Failure to meet obligations to assist the requester (s. 4(2.1) ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access (s. 10(3) ATIA)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documentation related to unidentified objects shot down over Yukon and Lake Huron in February 2023. The Information Commissioner found that DND did not meet its response deadline and is deemed to have refused access. An order was issued requiring DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limit.
• DND's reliance on internal offices (RCAF and CFINTCOM) for responsive records.
• The interpretation of 'response' under the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for materials related to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped this request with others to justify the extension. While the investigation found no improper regrouping, it determined that PSPC failed to justify the 768-day extension for processing the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
• Improper regrouping of access requests under paragraph 30(1)(f)
• Timeliness of response to access request

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning House of Commons committee studies related to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation within the extended time limit. The CRA acknowledged significant delays due to a backlog of records from one of its Offices of Primary Interest. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the CRA to provide a complete response by January 8, 2025. Recommendations were also made for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit.
• Delays caused by internal OPI record retrieval.
• Need for improved CRA internal processes for ATIP compliance.
• Accountability for delays in providing responsive records.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, an abuse of the right to request, and made in bad faith. The Commissioner agreed that the request was vexatious. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right to make a request
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith