Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada's (LAC) persistent delays in responding to access requests, prompted by a history of non-compliance with legislative deadlines. The investigation found that LAC failed to meet its obligation to provide timely access, with almost 80% of requests completed after the statutory deadlines in 2020-21. Key contributing factors identified were the backlog from suspending ATIP operations during the pandemic, problematic consultation practices with other institutions, inadequate infrastructure for processing classified records, the absence of a government-wide declassification program, and insufficient ATIP funding and resources. The Commissioner concluded the complaint was well-founded and issued ten recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address these systemic issues. However, the Commissioner found the Minister's responses largely lacked urgency and concrete commitments, leading to concerns about the sufficiency of proposed measures. The Commissioner also tabled a special report to Parliament highlighting broader challenges in the access to information system.

• Whether Library and Archives Canada (LAC) met its obligation to provide timely access to records under subsection 4(2.1) and section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether LAC's suspension of ATIP operations during the early months of the pandemic contributed to delays and non-compliance
• Whether LAC's practices regarding consultations with other institutions were consistent with paragraph 9(1)(b) of the ATIA and the Interim Directive
• Whether LAC's lack of adequate infrastructure for digitizing, reviewing, and consulting on Secret and Top Secret records contributed to processing delays
• Whether the absence of a mandatory government-wide declassification program contributed to delays in processing classified records
• Whether the lack of adequate funding for LAC's ATIP office to support new programs introduced by other institutions contributed to its inability to provide timely access
• Whether the ATIP and Litigation Response Division's large workload, vacant positions, and staff instability contributed to delays in responding to access requests

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld portions of a draft feasibility study under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, and Parks Canada changed its reliance to subsection 20(1)(b). The Commissioner found that Parks Canada and the third party did not demonstrate that all the withheld information met the requirements of subsection 20(1)(b), particularly where some information was publicly available or where they no longer opposed disclosure. While some information was found to be legitimately confidential financial/commercial data, other parts were not. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Parks Canada to disclose specific information that did not meet the exemption criteria. Parks Canada agreed to implement the order, leading to a well-founded complaint.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information was properly withheld
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on third party was properly withheld
• Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party was properly withheld
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was confidential (not publicly available, expectation of confidence, fostering relationship)
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 26 of the Access to Information Act, concerning documents related to specific Board of Directors meetings in 2019 for the Trans Mountain Project. During the investigation, TMC expanded its claims to include twelve additional exemptions, but failed to provide sufficient details or justification for any of the claimed exemptions or to properly consider severability. The Commissioner found that TMC had not applied the Act correctly and that further disclosure was warranted. Consequently, the Commissioner issued an initial report with an intended order for TMC to disclose all withheld information. TMC subsequently released portions of the records, which satisfied the complainant, making a formal order unnecessary.

• Whether s.21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.26 (information to be published) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.13(1)(c) (confidential information from government bodies) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.17 (safety of individuals) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.18(b) (competitive position of government institutions) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(b.1) (third-party emergency management plans) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.22 (testing or auditing procedures or techniques) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.22.1(1) (draft internal audit reports and their working papers) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) applied to the withheld information
• Whether Trans Mountain Corporation met its burden of justifying the refusal to disclose information
• Whether Trans Mountain Corporation properly considered severability under s.25 of the Act
• Whether Trans Mountain Corporation's late introduction of additional exemptions and arguments was appropriate

The complainant alleged that the Department of Finance Canada (Finance) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limits. The request, submitted on July 22, 2020, sought records related to a backgrounder on COVID-19 support for students. Although Finance sought clarifications, it did not claim an extension, and the due date was October 16, 2020. The investigation revealed that the delay was primarily due to Finance's internal Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch failing to provide records to the ATIP office in a timely manner. The Commissioner found that Finance was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to the prolonged delay. The Commissioner ordered Finance to provide a final response forthwith, and Finance agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the Department of Finance Canada failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to four access to information requests within the 30-day statutory time limit. The OIC investigation confirmed that the RCMP did not issue responses by the deadlines for any of the four requests, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The RCMP attributed the delays to operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including difficulties in obtaining records from its Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) and the need for legal consultations regarding potential Cabinet confidences. However, the Information Commissioner found these explanations insufficient to justify the significant, prolonged delays, noting that the issues identified were not new and had been the subject of previous commitments. Consequently, the Commissioner found all four complaints to be well founded and ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to provide final responses to each request forthwith. The RCMP subsequently informed the OIC that the complainant agreed to consolidate the requests, and a response would be provided by March 18, 2022.

• Whether the institution responded to the access requests within the 30-day time limit under s.7 ATIA
• Whether the institution's reasons for delay (COVID-19 operational challenges, OPI delays, potential Cabinet confidences) justified the failure to respond within the statutory timeframe

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access to information request, arguing it was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The request sought materials for a specific course offered during a particular period. The institution contended the request was repetitive, noting the requester had submitted over 900 requests, many of which were identical or substantially similar, and had already received the requested records and complained to the OIC regarding previous responses. The requester acknowledged some repetitiveness but denied any intent to be vexatious or abusive. The Commissioner found that while the volume of requests alone does not constitute abuse, the duplicative nature of the current request, which sought no new information and was entirely captured by previous requests, did. The Commissioner concluded that the repeated requests for substantively the same information, despite previous OIC investigations and available recourse to the Federal Court, constituted a misuse and abuse of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the volume of requests alone substantiates a finding of abuse
• Whether the duplicative nature of the request, given previous requests, constitutes abuse

An unnamed federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all internal correspondence of the institution over a seven-year period, which the institution believed constituted an abuse of the right of access. The institution demonstrated that it had made reasonable efforts to assist the requester in narrowing the scope, but the requester declined to engage. The Commissioner found that the request's extraordinarily broad scope, combined with the institution's small size and limited resources, would severely impede its ability to fulfill its mandate and respond to other access requests. Based on these factors, the Commissioner concluded that the request was indeed an abuse of the right of access. The application was granted, allowing the institution to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA

An unnamed federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, alleging it was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The institution stated the requester had submitted 893 requests over 17 years, many closely related, due to dissatisfaction with how the institution handled their affairs. The Commissioner considered the definition of "vexatious" and "abuse of right," drawing on jurisprudence from other Canadian jurisdictions. The Commissioner found 11 of the requester's prior requests were duplicative or substantially similar, rejecting the requester's arguments for their necessity. Ultimately, the Commissioner concluded that the request was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access, citing the large volume of requests, their repetitive nature, and recurring complaints to the OIC. The application was granted, allowing the institution to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is duplicative or substantially similar to previous requests
• Whether the volume of requests, combined with other factors, supports a finding of abuse of right

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, alleging the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request, and in bad faith. The institution stated the requester was a former employee who had submitted over a dozen requests under the ATIA and Privacy Act within a year, following their dismissal. The Commissioner assessed the institution's claims regarding vagueness, repetitiveness, abusive language, and safety concerns, finding insufficient evidence to support the vexatious claim. The Commissioner also found no evidence that the request diminished the rights of other requesters or impacted the institution's other duties, thus rejecting the abuse of right claim. Finally, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to prove the request was made in bad faith, noting that pursuing legal rights does not equate to bad faith. The Commissioner also found the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was denied, and the institution was required to process the request.

• Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is vague
• Whether the request is repetitive with previous requests
• Whether the requester used abusive language
• Whether there are concerns for the safety of employees related to the request
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request diminishes the right of access of other requesters
• Whether the request affects the institution's ability to perform its other duties and responsibilities
• Whether the access request is made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA

The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) regarding an access request. The institution provided documentation showing that the complaint was submitted more than seven weeks after the 60-day statutory deadline set out in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The complainant acknowledged the delay, explaining that the institution's response to their request had been "misplaced" after receipt, and asked the Commissioner to exercise "residual discretion" to extend the deadline. The Commissioner considered the complainant's representations and the documentary evidence. Citing Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the Commissioner concluded that she does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes for filing complaints. Therefore, the complaint was rejected as it did not meet the requirements of section 31.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe under section 31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint