Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable 2,280 days to respond to an access request. Justice claimed an extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act due to the large volume and complexity of records and the need for consultations. The Information Commissioner found that while the volume of records and the need for consultations were valid reasons for an extension, Justice failed to sufficiently justify the length of the extension claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a). Therefore, the complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered Justice to provide a final response forthwith.

• Reasonableness of time extension claimed due to volume of records (s. 9(1)(a) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of time extension claimed for consultations (s. 9(1)(b) ATIA)
• Justification for the duration of specific processing steps
• Failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of the claimed extension period

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada's (LAC) delayed responses to access requests. The investigation found that nearly 80% of requests completed by LAC during the period under review did not meet legislative deadlines. The Commissioner made ten recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address the systemic issues causing these delays, which include problems with inter-institutional consultations, lack of a declassification framework, insufficient infrastructure for processing classified records, and inadequate ATIP resources.

• LAC's failure to respond to access requests within legislative timeframes.
• Excessive delays caused by inter-institutional consultations.
• Lack of infrastructure and processes for handling classified records.
• Insufficient resources and funding for LAC's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office.

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada improperly withheld portions of a draft feasibility study. Parks Canada initially cited exemptions related to personal information, financial impact on third parties, and negotiations by a third party. During the investigation, Parks Canada shifted its reliance to the exemption for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. The Information Commissioner found that neither Parks Canada nor the third party (Liricon Capital Ltd.) demonstrated that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered Parks Canada to disclose specific portions of the study.

• Whether information in a draft feasibility study was properly withheld under exemptions related to personal information, financial impact, negotiations, or confidential third-party information.
• Whether the institution and third party met the burden of proof to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether certain withheld information was already publicly available or disclosed elsewhere in the record, thus failing the confidentiality requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information related to Board of Directors meetings, citing exemptions under sections 21 and 26 of the Access to Information Act. TMC later claimed a total of 15 exemptions and failed to provide sufficient justification or detail for withholding the information. The Commissioner found TMC's application of exemptions was incorrect and disclosure was warranted. However, after the Commissioner issued an intended order, TMC released additional information, satisfying the complainant, and rendering a formal order unnecessary.

• Adequacy of justification for claimed exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion
• Application of severability principle
• Failure to identify specific withheld information and third parties

The complainant alleged that the Department of Finance Canada failed to respond to a request for information about a backgrounder document within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that significant delays were caused by an internal branch failing to provide records to the ATIP office in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered the Minister of Finance to provide a response forthwith, noting that the ongoing delay was unacceptable.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Internal delays in record retrieval and processing
• Application of subsection 10(3) (deemed refusal)

The complainant filed four complaints alleging the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to access requests within the 30-day time limit. The OIC found that the RCMP did not provide adequate justification for the significant delays, despite acknowledging operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to issue a response to each request.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit under section 7 of the ATIA
• Adequacy of justification for delays due to COVID-19 operational challenges
• Requirement for institutions to respond even when records are not yet retrieved

The complainant filed a complaint under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) concerning an institution's response to their request. The institution argued the complaint was filed outside the 60-day time limit stipulated by section 31 of the ATIA. The complainant acknowledged the delay but requested the Information Commissioner extend the deadline due to the institution's undated covering letter and the misplacement of the response. The Commissioner rejected the complaint, stating she lacks the authority to extend statutory timeframes.

• Timeliness of complaint submission
• Commissioner's discretion to extend statutory time limits
• Interpretation of section 31 of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) obstructed their right of access by unduly delaying the processing of a request for COVID-19 pandemic contracts. The investigation found significant failures in PSPC's processing, including grouping requests incorrectly and poor record management by the office of primary interest, leading to a year-long delay. While the delay was found to be a failure to provide timely access, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of intent to conceal records.

• Timeliness of access request processing
• Obligation to assist requesters
• Allegations of obstruction and concealment of records
• Proper handling of access requests by offices of primary interest

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) improperly withheld records concerning increased sick leave use before retirement, citing exemptions related to negotiations, advice, and personnel plans. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope. The Information Commissioner found that TBS failed to demonstrate that disclosing the statistical and dated information would harm negotiations or personnel plans, as claimed under various ATIA exemptions. TBS did not provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the records.

• Applicability of paragraph 18(b) (negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(c) (plans for negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(d) (personnel plans)

The complainant requested specific case information from the Department of Justice Canada (Justice), concerning cases filed with the Tax Court of Canada related to section 245 of the Income Tax Act. Justice withheld the records, citing solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that Justice failed to establish that the identification of the responsive records hinged on privileged information and recommended full disclosure. Justice declined to implement the recommendation.

• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether the identification of responsive records required privileged information
• Whether the information in the iCase database was subject to privilege
• Whether disclosed pleadings would indirectly reveal privileged information