Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Ingenium improperly withheld information related to the loan of objects for the exhibit "Autopsy of a Murder" under various sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, Ingenium claimed exemptions under sections 14, 16(1)(c), 18(b), 18(d), and 19(1). During the investigation, Ingenium decided to no longer rely on sections 16(1)(c), 18(b), 18(d), and 19(1) (for signatures), and disclosed some information. Ingenium then invoked paragraph 68(c) concurrently with section 14 to withhold photographs. The Commissioner found that the photographs were not excluded under paragraph 68(c) as they were operational records, not the artifacts themselves. Furthermore, Ingenium failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of the photographs would cause a reasonable expectation of harm to federal-provincial affairs under section 14. The Commissioner also considered, but ultimately dismissed, arguments related to Quebec's privacy legislation and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, noting that Charter rights do not apply to the deceased and the photographs were not objectively offensive. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and Ingenium was ordered to disclose the records.

• Whether s.14 ATIA (federal-provincial affairs) was properly applied to withhold photographs
• Whether s.16(1)(c) ATIA (conduct of investigations) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to withhold signatures
• Whether s.68(c) ATIA (material placed by others in certain institutions) excluded photographs from the Act
• Whether the photographs constituted 'material placed by others' under s.68(c)
• Whether disclosure of the photographs could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of federal-provincial affairs under s.14
• Whether Quebec's privacy legislation or the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms justified withholding the information under the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Health Canada's 1,000-day extension of time to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request sought information regarding an application for religious exemption to serve ayahuasca. Health Canada claimed the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, citing a large volume of records (over 14,000 pages) and the need for extensive consultations, particularly with its Legal Services Unit, due to the sensitive and precedent-setting nature of the subject matter. The institution argued that processing the request within a shorter timeframe would unreasonably interfere with its operations and that consultations could not be completed within 30 days. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada met all the requirements for both paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b), concluding that the calculation of the extension was logical and supportable, and that the extension was reasonable. Consequently, the complaint was deemed not well founded, and the due date for the response remains December 19, 2025.

• Whether the access request was for a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether consultations were necessary under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCan application. The complainant specifically questioned the absence of information related to named companies and expenses. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated by reviewing CBSA's search efforts, including the program areas tasked and the search parameters. The OIC found that the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) most likely to hold relevant records, the Information, Science and Technology Branch, had searched appropriate repositories and provided 896 pages of documents for processing. Based on this, the Commissioner concluded that CBSA conducted a reasonable search. The complaint was therefore deemed not well founded.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, related to the use of Indigenous languages in House of Commons proceedings. The OIC investigation found that the claim under subsection 19(1) was no longer pursued by the complainant. PSPC failed to demonstrate that most of the withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 18(b) or 20(1)(d), except for per diem rates under paragraph 18(b). However, the Commissioner found that PSPC did not reasonably exercise its discretion when deciding to withhold these per diem rates, as it did not consider all relevant factors, including those favoring disclosure. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d) and to re-exercise its discretion regarding the per diem rates. PSPC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party)
• Whether disclosure of information could interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.18(b) ATIA (negotiations by government institutions)
• Whether disclosure of estimates for per diem fees could reasonably be expected to interfere with PSPC's negotiations under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of other information could reasonably be expected to interfere with negotiations under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose per diem rates under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC considered all relevant factors for and against disclosure when exercising discretion