Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a significant increase in access requests for immigration information and a rise in delay complaints. The investigation found that CBSA is overwhelmed by these requests because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has not implemented an effective system for clients to retrieve their own immigration application information. This has caused a spillover effect, increasing CBSA's workload. The Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to address the issue, and CBSA has committed to implementing them.

• High volume of access requests for immigration application information made to CBSA.
• Increase in delay complaints against CBSA.
• Lack of an effective system for clients to retrieve immigration application information directly from IRCC.
• Impact of IRCC's delays on CBSA's ATIP unit workload.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a hiring process within the legislated 30-day period. The investigation found that DND did not meet the deadline, and the delay was caused by the unresponsiveness of an internal office. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to respond to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response
• Consequences of not responding within the prescribed time limit

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonably long extension of time to respond to a request for RCMP records concerning Project Anecdote. LAC claimed an extension of over 65 years, citing the large volume of records (780,000 pages) requiring digitization and review, as well as consultations. The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the extension, as it did not justify the calculation method, the sole reliance on one employee, or the concurrent nature of tasks. Therefore, the extension was deemed invalid and LAC was considered to have refused access.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a) due to volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(b) due to consultations
• Calculation of extension based on specific tasks and resources
• LAC's failure to demonstrate that the extension was for the shortest possible duration

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline processing an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner agreed, finding that the institution had demonstrated the request was an abuse of access rights and that declining to act was warranted. Consequently, the application was granted.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access.

The complainant alleged that Ingenium improperly withheld records related to an exhibit loan under several Access to Information Act provisions. During the investigation, Ingenium decided to no longer rely on some exemptions and agreed to disclose more information. The Commissioner found that photographs withheld under section 14 (federal-provincial affairs) and paragraph 68(c) (material placed by others) were not properly excluded or exempted. The Commissioner ordered Ingenium to disclose the records.

• Whether photographs were properly excluded under paragraph 68(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether photographs were properly exempted under section 14 of the ATIA (federal-provincial affairs).
• The application of the ATIA versus Quebec privacy legislation and Charter values.
• The interpretation of "material placed by others" under paragraph 68(c).

The complainant alleged that the 1,000-day time extension taken by Health Canada to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request concerned information about an application for religious exemption to serve ayahuasca. Health Canada claimed the extension was necessary due to the large volume and complexity of the records, which required extensive internal consultations. The Commissioner found that Health Canada met the requirements for claiming the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. Therefore, the complaint was determined not to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of a 1,000-day time extension claimed by Health Canada
• Whether the large volume of records unreasonably interfered with Health Canada's operations
• Whether necessary consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days
• Whether the duration of the extension was reasonable under the circumstances