Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access to information request, specifically concerning a time extension for consultations. CSIS argued that the extension was necessary due to the sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review, and limited workplace access, all exacerbated by the pandemic. The OIC found that CSIS made a reasonable effort to assess the extension period and concluded that the time taken was justified given the circumstances.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultations under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Impact of the pandemic on the ability of institutions to complete consultations within the standard timeframes.
• Whether CSIS adequately demonstrated the necessity and duration of the time extension.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine complaints concerning Global Affairs Canada's failure to meet deadlines or take unreasonable time extensions in responding to access requests. In four cases, the institution cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor. Global Affairs committed to finalizing all nine requests by October 15, 2021. The OIC found all nine complaints to be well founded.

• Timeliness of response to access to information requests
• Impact of COVID-19 on institution's ability to process requests
• Reasonableness of time extensions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the withheld information was obtained by the RCMP during a lawful investigation related to the suppression of crime and was created less than 20 years before the request. The OIC was also satisfied that the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding to withhold the information.

• Whether the information was obtained or prepared by an investigative body in the course of a lawful investigation pertaining to the detection, prevention or suppression of crime.
• Whether the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request.
• Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information concerning a specific individual's business ownership under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the requested information was about an identifiable taxpayer (not the complainant) and was obtained by the CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act. As section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of such information, the OIC concluded the CRA properly withheld the records.

• Whether the information requested was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA (disclosure restricted by another law).
• Whether the information constituted taxpayer information as defined by the Income Tax Act.
• Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricted the disclosure of the requested information.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning producers and users of medical cannabis. Responsive records were drawn from one database, but Health Canada argued retrieving additional records from a second database would be unreasonable due to the manual labour involved. The Information Commissioner agreed that the search was reasonable given the effort required.

• Reasonableness of search

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly relied on section 26 of the Access to Information Act to refuse access to annual statistics regarding the processing of access to information and privacy requests. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada met the criteria for applying section 26 and had properly considered all relevant factors in its decision.

• Applicability of section 26 of the ATIA (Refusal of access if information to be published)
• Proper exercise of discretion by the institution

The Information Commissioner investigated a complaint that Canadian Heritage (PCH) had suspended processing access requests due to the COVID-19 pandemic. PCH was unable to access its premises or systems from March 16, 2020, to July 10, 2020, resulting in a backlog of 224 requests. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, stating PCH's failure to respond breached requesters' rights under the Act.

• Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on processing access requests
• Institution's ability to access premises and remote systems
• Failure to respond to access requests within statutory timelines

The complainant disputed Transport Canada's decision to withhold information regarding vehicle safety recall completion rates, citing exemptions under sections 14, 20, and 21 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that neither Transport Canada nor the third party met their burden to prove the exemptions applied to the records. The Commissioner recommended that Transport Canada release all withheld information, except for specific personal details. Transport Canada agreed to implement these recommendations.

• Application of section 14 of the ATIA (intergovernmental relations)
• Application of section 20 of the ATIA (third-party information)
• Application of section 21 of the ATIA (confidential deliberations)
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions

The complainant requested information regarding a High Frequency Rail Proposal from VIA Rail Canada. VIA Rail withheld the information citing several exemptions under the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that VIA Rail failed to prove the exemptions applied and did not perform a proper severance analysis to release non-exempt portions of the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether VIA Rail Canada properly applied exemptions under sections 18 and 21 of the ATIA.
• Whether VIA Rail Canada conducted an adequate severance exercise.
• Whether VIA Rail Canada exercised due diligence in responding to the access request.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1968 within the statutory time limits. PCO claimed an extension for consultations, but when other institutions did not respond, PCO closed the file based on its "no late file" policy. The OIC found that the Act does not permit PCO to fail to respond due to unreceived recommendations and determined PCO was in deemed refusal.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Proper application of time extension provisions
• PCO's "no late file" policy in relation to the Act

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1971 within the statutory time limits. PCO cited its "no late file" policy as the reason for closing the file when consultations with other institutions were not completed on time. The Information Commissioner found that PCO's failure to respond constituted a deemed refusal under the Act.

• Failure to respond within ATIA time limits
• Validity of "no late file" policy
• Deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1962 within the statutory time limits. PCO claimed an extension and then closed the file, stating it had not received recommendations from other government institutions, based on its “no late file” policy. The Information Commissioner found that the Act does not authorize this reason for non-response and that PCO was in deemed refusal.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits
• Validity of PCO's "no late file" policy
• Application of subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act (deemed refusal)

A complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to identify all records responsive to an Access to Information Act request and should have provided an index of these records. The Information Commissioner of Canada found that Health Canada conducted a reasonable search and did not improperly withhold records. The Commissioner also determined that Health Canada was not obligated to create an index for this request, as it would have been unreasonable.

• Duty to assist
• Reasonableness of search
• Obligation to create an index of records

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1957 to 1958 within the statutory time limits. PCO claimed an extension and consulted other institutions, but failed to respond when recommendations were not received by the deadline, citing a “no late file” policy. The OIC found that the Act does not permit such a failure to respond and that PCO was in deemed refusal.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Proper application of time extensions
• Effect of "no late file" policy on ATIA obligations