Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

This report details a systemic investigation into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's (RCMP) timeliness in responding to access to information requests between 2016 and 2019. The investigation found significant delays and an increasing backlog of requests. The Information Commissioner made 15 recommendations across six areas to improve the RCMP's performance. However, the Minister of Public Safety largely ignored these recommendations, failing to provide adequate explanations or commit to concrete plans for improvement. Consequently, the Commissioner found the situation dire and tabled a special report to Parliament.

• Timeliness of access to information requests
• RCMP's failure to provide representations during delay investigations
• Adequacy of the Minister's response to recommendations
• Impact of resources and systems on access to information performance

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limits. PCO had claimed an extension and then placed the request on hold for consultations, which it conducted over several years. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, as PCO's indefinite hold on the request had no provision in the Act. The Commissioner recommended PCO provide a final response by June 1, 2020, but PCO failed to meet this deadline, citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on consultations. As the complaint was filed before recent amendments, the Commissioner's jurisdiction was limited to making recommendations.

• Timeliness of response
• Indefinite hold on request for consultations
• Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on processing
• Commissioner's jurisdiction and remedies

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada missed the deadline to respond to an access to information request. The Information Commissioner previously recommended a response date, which the institution did not accept but committed to a later date. When the institution again failed to respond, the complaint was reopened. The Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded.

• Timeliness of response under ATIA section 10(3)
• Failure to meet commitment disclosure date

This report details a systemic investigation into how the Department of National Defence (DND) processed access to information requests between January 1, 2017, and December 21, 2018. The investigation examined six key offices and DND's ATIP Directorate, reviewing their internal processes, training, and statistics. The Commissioner made nine recommendations to the Minister of National Defence to address identified shortcomings, which the Minister accepted and agreed to implement.

• Timeliness of access to information request processing
• Adherence to legislative obligations under the Access to Information Act
• Effectiveness of internal procedures and training for ATIP staff
• Improvement of ATIP compliance metrics

The complainant challenged the Department of Justice Canada's decision to withhold a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for legal services, citing section 23 (Legal advice and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. The Department could not demonstrate that the entire MOU, including its title and signature blocks, was protected by solicitor-client privilege. Furthermore, the Department had waived privilege over some information within the MOU. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded.

• Applicability of section 23 (Legal advice and litigation privilege)
• Waiver of privilege
• Protection of general identifying information

The complainant filed a complaint after National Defence (DND) did not respond to their access to information request. DND had decided that the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the complaint was not well-founded, indicating that DND's handling of the request was appropriate.

• Whether the institution responded to the request within the time limits prescribed by the Act.

The complainant requested records related to a human rights file from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The CHRC withheld information citing personal information, testing/auditing procedures, and solicitor-client privilege. During the OIC investigation, the CHRC agreed to disclose information withheld under testing/auditing procedures and portions withheld under solicitor-client privilege. The OIC found that some file numbers withheld as personal information did not meet the exemption's requirements, and that certain draft investigation reports withheld under solicitor-client privilege also did not meet the exemption's requirements. The CHRC agreed to disclose these records.

• Applicability of the personal information exemption (section 19(1)) to file numbers
• Applicability of the solicitor-client privilege exemption (section 23) to draft investigation reports
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution
• Disclosure of information withheld under testing/auditing procedures (section 22)

The requester filed a complaint after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to an access to information request for over two years. The RCMP provided insufficient information during the investigation regarding the records or the processing of the request. As a result, the Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded and ordered the RCMP to respond to the request within 10 business days.

• Failure to respond to an access to information request within the prescribed time limits.
• Adequacy of information provided by the institution during the investigation.

A requester alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limit. The RCMP was deemed to have refused access as they did not respond by the due date. Although the RCMP cited high volume and resource pressures, the Commissioner found these reasons did not justify the delay, especially given the moderate volume of records. The complaint was found to be well-founded. An initial report with an intended order was issued, but the RCMP subsequently responded to the request, rendering the order moot.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Adequacy of reasons for delay
• Assessment of record volume and complexity

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, claiming it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access records. The institution noted the requester had submitted 893 requests over 17 years, many similar to the current one. The Commissioner found that 11 of the requests were duplicative and that the requester had not provided justification for resubmitting them. The Commissioner concluded that the volume and repetitive nature of the requests, combined with the requester's history of complaints, amounted to an abuse of the right of access.

• Whether the access request was vexatious
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access records
• Whether the institution met the threshold for declining to act on the request

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, alleging it was vexatious, an abuse of the right to request records, and made in bad faith. The requester was a former employee who had filed multiple previous access requests. The Commissioner found the institution failed to prove the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right of access, or made in bad faith, and also failed to demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Commissioner denied the institution's application.

• Whether the access request was vexatious.
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access records.
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith.
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline processing an access request from a former employee. The institution argued the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right to access, and made in bad faith due to the requester's previous dismissal and numerous prior requests. The Commissioner found the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence for any of these claims.

• Whether the request was vexatious
• Whether the request constituted an abuse of the right of access
• Whether the request was made in bad faith
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist

This is a systemic investigation report that examined how federal institutions handle access to information requests related to scientists and scientific information. The investigation was initiated by a complaint from the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Victoria and Democracy Watch. It concluded that while some progress had been made, challenges remained in ensuring timely and complete access to information concerning scientists within federal institutions.

• Timeliness of access to information requests concerning scientists
• Completeness of information provided in response to requests about scientists
• Impact of institutional practices on the right of access to information regarding scientists

This document is a systemic investigation into Parks Canada's approach to processing access requests, completed in 2015-2016. It highlights how cooperation with the Information Commissioner's Office can lead to positive systemic changes in how access rights are managed. The report uses Parks Canada's practices as an example for improvement.

• Effectiveness of Parks Canada's access to information request processing
• Impact of leadership and collaboration on access rights
• Systemic changes in access to information practices

The requester sought access to the Firearms Registry database from the RCMP on March 27, 2012. The RCMP provided an incomplete response, which the requester argued was not justified and that the destruction of records obstructed their access rights. The OIC investigated the complaint.

• Incompleteness of the provided information
• Lack of justification for incomplete response
• Destruction of records obstructing right of access under section 67.1 of the ATIA