Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) improperly withheld information related to a contract under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that NRCan and the third party did not demonstrate that all the requirements for these exemptions were met for most of the withheld information. The Commissioner recommended disclosing all information except for a void cheque and the unit prices and quantities. NRCan disclosed some additional information but not all that was recommended, leading to the complaint being found well-founded.

• Whether information was confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether disclosing information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution met the requirements of the exemptions claimed.
• Whether the institution implemented the Commissioner's recommendation.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner seeking approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information and vexatious. The institution also claimed it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Commissioner found the institution did meet its duty to assist but failed to provide sufficient evidence that the request was an abuse of process or vexatious. Therefore, the application to decline the request was not granted.

• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester.
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request.
• Whether the access request was vexatious.

An institution applied for approval to decline to act on three access requests, arguing they were made in bad faith and constituted an abuse of the right to access information. The requests sought records containing a list of offensive words over a three-year period. The Commissioner found that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester and that the requests, due to their breadth, volume, and the specific keywords used, were indeed an abuse of the right of access, warranting approval to decline acting on them.

• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester.
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to access information.
• The appropriateness of using vulgar and offensive keywords in access requests.
• The cumulative burden of multiple requests from the same requester.

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct reasonable searches for records related to specific contracts under the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that National Defence had not attempted to retrieve records from a third-party contractor and had not searched all likely locations, such as a cloud-based platform. Consequently, the OIC ordered National Defence to conduct further searches, process any responsive records found, and provide updated responses to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of search efforts
• Definition of 'control' over records
• Failure to retrieve records from third-party contractor
• Deficiencies in records management

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld records concerning the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The withheld information was claimed to be exempt under provisions related to personal information, advice and recommendations, and litigation privilege. The Information Commissioner found that while some information initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) should have been disclosed, it was released during the investigation. The Commissioner was satisfied that the remaining withheld information met the criteria for the other exemptions claimed. The complaint was ultimately found to be well-founded.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) (personal information).
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations).
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 23 (litigation privilege).
• Whether the institution properly excluded records deemed not relevant based on the complainant's prior agreement.