Condita Research
Decisions/Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — with AI-generated plain-language summaries for every ruling.

1,622 decisions in archive
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActDiscontinued
Date not listed2023 OIC 40· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Notice under subsection 30(5), 2023 OIC 40

A federal institution

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased investigating seventeen complaints. The complainant alleged that an institution's time extensions on seventeen access requests were unreasonable. However, the Commissioner found the requests were vexatious and substantively duplicative of a previous request where the institution's time extension was deemed reasonable. The Commissioner also noted the institution was providing interim responses as committed, and the complainant's actions suggested an attempt to circumvent previous findings.

Quick View

Access to Information ActDiscontinued

Notice under subsection 30(5), 2023 OIC 40

Date not listed2023 OIC 40
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased investigating seventeen complaints. The complainant alleged that an institution's time extensions on seventeen access requests were unreasonable. However, the Commissioner found the requests were vexatious and substantively duplicative of a previous request where the institution's time extension was deemed reasonable. The Commissioner also noted the institution was providing interim responses as committed, and the complainant's actions suggested an attempt to circumvent previous findings.

Key Issues
  • Whether the complaints were vexatious
  • Whether further investigation was unnecessary
  • Whether the requests were duplicative of a previous request
  • Whether the complainant was attempting to circumvent previous findings
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActDiscontinued
Date not listed2025 OIC 41· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Decision under section 31, 2025 OIC 41

A federal institution

The complainant alleged that a federal institution had failed to respond to an access request within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal. The Information Commissioner found the complaint inadmissible because it was not submitted within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's awareness of the deemed refusal began when the institution first failed to meet the statutory deadline, not on the date the complaint was filed.

Quick View

Access to Information ActDiscontinued

Decision under section 31, 2025 OIC 41

Date not listed2025 OIC 41
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that a federal institution had failed to respond to an access request within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal. The Information Commissioner found the complaint inadmissible because it was not submitted within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's awareness of the deemed refusal began when the institution first failed to meet the statutory deadline, not on the date the complaint was filed.

Key Issues
  • Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
  • Definition of 'day on which the requester becomes aware' for deemed refusals
  • Interpretation of 'ongoing' or 'continuing' deemed refusals
  • Applicability of Federal Court and OIC precedent on complaint timeliness