Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

In 2015-2016, the Commissioner conducted a systemic investigation into Parks Canada's approach to processing access to information requests. The investigation highlighted the importance of collaboration between institutions and the Commissioner to achieve positive systemic changes for access rights. This case illustrated how an institution's engagement during an investigation could lead to improvements in its access to information practices. The Commissioner's findings focused on the institution's overall approach rather than specific exemptions or individual complaints. The outcome emphasized the benefits of leadership and cooperation in addressing systemic issues related to access to information.

• Parks Canada's approach to processing access requests
• Systemic issues in access to information practices

The complainant requested access to the Firearms Registry database from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on March 27, 2012, prior to the enactment of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The complainant alleged that the RCMP provided an incomplete response, failed to justify the incompleteness, and obstructed the right of access by destroying responsive records. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP's actions, particularly the destruction of records, constituted an obstruction of the right of access under section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner examined the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Long-gun Registry data. The Commissioner found that the destruction of the records was carried out in accordance with a valid legislative process and did not constitute an obstruction of the right of access.

• Whether the information provided was incomplete
• Whether the RCMP justified the incomplete response
• Whether the destruction of responsive records by the RCMP obstructed the right of access under section 67.1 of the Act

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation under section 39 of the Access to Information Act into Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The investigation focused on the processing of eight access to information or consultation requests received by PWGSC between July 22, 2008, and January 19, 2010. The primary concern was the possibility of interference in the processing of these requests. This report, titled "Interference with Access to Information: Part 2," details the Commissioner's findings regarding the alleged interference. The investigation aimed to determine if the institution's handling of these requests was appropriate or if there were instances of improper influence or obstruction.

• Whether there was interference in the processing of access to information requests at Public Works and Government Services Canada
• Whether Public Works and Government Services Canada properly processed eight specific access to information or consultation requests

In August 2012, the Information Commissioner launched a systemic investigation into the use and preservation of non-email, text-based messages on government-issued wireless devices, specifically instant messaging and PINs. This investigation was prompted by a complaint against Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) where a complainant received an email suggesting the use of "pin" instead of email for communication. During the investigation of that complaint, it was discovered that relevant BlackBerry devices had been replaced and destroyed, leading to the permanent loss of potentially responsive information. Due to this incident and a rise in similar complaints about missing records, the Commissioner initiated a self-complaint under section 30(1)(f) of the ATIA to examine the impact of instant messaging on access to information. The investigation focused on 11 federal institutions to assess their practices regarding the retention of these types of communications.

• Impact of instant messaging on the right of access to information
• Preservation of non-email, text-based messages on government-issued wireless devices
• Retention policies and practices for instant messages and PIN communications
• Loss of records due to device replacement and destruction

The complainant alleged that a federal institution failed to respond to an access request within the statutory 30-day period or an extended period, resulting in a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The complainant submitted their complaint on January 21, 2025, arguing that the deemed refusal was 'ongoing' and therefore the 60-day time limit for complaints under section 31 should not apply from the initial awareness date. The OIC requested clarification on when the complainant first became aware of the institution's failure to respond, but the complainant maintained their 'ongoing refusal' position. The OIC determined that the complaint was inadmissible because it was not submitted within the mandatory 60-day time limit from when the complainant first became aware of the grounds for complaint. The Commissioner rejected the argument that an 'ongoing' deemed refusal continuously restarts the complaint period, citing Federal Court precedent and emphasizing that the Act does not grant the Commissioner power to extend this time limit.

• Whether the complaint was submitted within the 60-day time limit prescribed by section 31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether an 'ongoing' deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act continuously restarts the 60-day complaint period under section 31
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the power to extend the 60-day time limit for submitting complaints

The Information Commissioner ceased investigation into seventeen complaints, finding them vexatious. The complaints alleged unreasonable time extensions taken by an institution. However, the Commissioner found that these seventeen requests sought the same information as a previous request from the same complainant, which had already been the subject of an OIC investigation where the time extension was deemed reasonable. The complainant had not pursued a Federal Court review of the previous finding. Evidence showed the institution was providing regular interim responses as committed, contrary to the complainant's assertion. The Commissioner concluded that the new complaints were an attempt to circumvent the OIC's previous findings and avoid the proper recourse mechanism of Federal Court review. Therefore, the Commissioner ceased investigation under paragraphs 30(4)(a) and (b) of the Access to Information Act.

• Whether the complaints were vexatious under s.30(4)(a) ATIA
• Whether further investigation was unnecessary under s.30(4)(b) ATIA
• Whether the new requests were substantively duplicative of a previously investigated complaint
• Whether the complainant was attempting to circumvent previous OIC findings

The complainant submitted an access to information request to a federal institution and received a response in October 2021. The institution's response included a notice informing the complainant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days. The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) in January 2022, which was more than sixty days after receiving the institution's response. The OIC determined that the complaint was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe specified in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner concluded that the OIC does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

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

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. The institution argued that it had already disclosed some of the requested information to the same requester through an informal request, and processing the formal request would be duplicative. The institution sought to limit the scope of the formal request by excluding the time period covered by the informal release. However, the Commissioner found that the institution did not adequately explain how the records would be duplicates, noting that the subject matter and type of records appeared different. The Commissioner also considered that the formal request might be seeking a present-day review of redactions applied to previously released records. Crucially, the institution failed to specify which criteria under subsection 6.1(1) (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right) it was relying on, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of duplication meeting these criteria. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the application, requiring the institution to process the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith 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 institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
• Whether the institution's application was complete according to OIC guidance