Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The Information Commissioner ceased investigation into complaint 5819-02602. The complainant had indicated a desire to pursue the matter solely as a point of principle, despite the underlying issue for which the information was sought having already been settled. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's apparent lack of interest in actually obtaining the records, coupled with the request to continue the investigation based purely on principle, rendered the complaint trivial. Consequently, the investigation was ceased under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act, which permits the Commissioner to discontinue an investigation if the complaint is deemed trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

• Whether the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information related to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations. The CRA had released a list of company names but withheld the total CEWS amounts received by each company, citing subsections 24(1), 16(1)(c), and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) focused its investigation on subsection 24(1), which mandates refusal of disclosure if restricted by a Schedule II provision. The OIC found that the withheld information constituted "taxpayer information" as defined by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, a Schedule II provision, because it related to identifiable taxpayers and was obtained or prepared by CRA for administering the Income Tax Act. Since subsection 24(1) was found to apply, the OIC did not assess the applicability of subsections 16(1)(c) and 19(1) to the same information. The Commissioner concluded that the information was properly withheld, and the complaint was not well founded.

• Whether the withheld information constitutes "taxpayer information" under section 241 of the Income Tax Act
• Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts disclosure of the information under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA
• Whether subsection 24(1) ATIA was properly applied to withhold the information
• Whether paragraph 16(1)(c) ATIA applies to the information (not considered)
• Whether subsection 19(1) ATIA applies to the information (not considered)

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to its "E Norther" file and National Administrative Records Management System (NARMS). Specifically, the complainant identified the RCMP's Legal Services Unit as a potential source of records, but the RCMP initially refused to search this area, claiming the records would not be under its control. The OIC's investigation found that any such records would likely be under the RCMP's control. The RCMP subsequently agreed to task its Legal Services Unit, which led to the identification and release of additional records to the complainant. The Commissioner concluded that the RCMP's initial search was not reasonable and ordered the RCMP to confirm with an outstanding Office of Primary Interest (OPI) and process any further responsive records. The RCMP later confirmed that the outstanding OPI had responded and an additional response was sent to the complainant.

• Whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether records held by the RCMP's Departmental Legal Services Unit were under the control of the RCMP

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request by the extended due date. The request sought all documents related to the Copyright Media Clearance Program for a specific period. PSPC had extended the response deadline by 420 days, but failed to provide a response by the new due date. The OIC found that PSPC did not meet its obligation to respond within the time limits, leading to a deemed refusal of access. Despite PSPC citing resource limitations and COVID-19 related difficulties, the Commissioner concluded that these were not valid reasons for continued delay. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days, but PSPC indicated it would not fully implement the order, proposing a phased approach with a later completion date.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act