Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to specific files concerning the Intelligence Assessment Committee. The investigation confirmed that CSE did not respond by the due date, attributing the delay to untimely processing of records and delays in sending consultation packages to other government institutions. Despite receiving approximately 3,000 pages of responsive hardcopy records, CSE had not digitized them or initiated all necessary consultations. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and the proposed response date of January 24, 2025, unreasonable, especially given the historical nature of the request and prior disclosures. The complaint was found to be well founded, and CSE was ordered to provide a complete response within 72 business days. However, CSE notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order and would seek a review by the Federal Court.

• Whether Communications Security Establishment Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's failure to respond by the due date constituted a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act
• Whether the institution's proposed response date of January 24, 2025, was reasonable

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought information, including emails, reports, flight logs, and cargo manifests, related to Canadian government-owned planes landing in Lebanon between October 7 and December 5, 2023. DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that the delay was due to a lack of responsiveness from two Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) within DND, preventing the Directorate of Access to Information and Privacy from processing the request. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 60 business days. DND subsequently agreed to implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a list of grants and contributions, including assistance type and other details, approved under specific ISED programs. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding paragraph 20(1)(c). ISED argued that disclosing the assistance type would harm its negotiating position by allowing companies to compare terms and seek more favorable conditions, thereby interfering with future negotiations. However, the Commissioner found that ISED failed to demonstrate how the release of this information would cause further harm, as similar information was already publicly available. The Commissioner concluded that ISED did not meet the requirements of paragraph 18(b) and ordered the disclosure of the withheld information. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA applied to information regarding the assistance type of grants and contributions
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of a government institution
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to the competitive position
• Whether contractual or other negotiations were under way or would be conducted in the future
• Whether disclosure could interfere with negotiations
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations
• Whether ISED properly exercised its discretion under s.18(b)

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a high number of complaints alleging delays in responding to access requests, particularly for immigration application information. The investigation found a dramatic increase in requests to CBSA for records stored in the Global Case Management System (GCMS), which is also accessed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). This surge was attributed to IRCC's failure to implement an effective system for clients to directly retrieve their immigration information, leading requesters to file identical requests with both institutions. Despite CBSA's efforts to increase funding, implement automation, and improve consistency and collaboration, the Commissioner found that CBSA must continue to find ways to meet its obligations under the Act, as the root cause (IRCC's system deficiencies) is outside its control. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

• Whether Canada Border Services Agency failed to respond to access requests within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the increase in access requests to Canada Border Services Agency for immigration application information is due to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's lack of an effective system for direct client information retrieval
• Whether Canada Border Services Agency's current measures are sufficient to address the high volume of access requests and backlog

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought correspondence related to a hiring process for a General Safety Officer position at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, including information about the anticipated re-hire of a named individual. DND received the request on April 3, 2023, and did not extend the deadline or transfer the request, making the due date May 3, 2023. The investigation found that DND did not respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to a lack of responsiveness from one of the Offices of Primary Interest within DND. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request within 36 business days of the final report. DND subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA due to delay

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, seeking approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access. The Information Commissioner reviewed the institution's submission and found that the institution successfully demonstrated that the access request was indeed an abuse of the right of access. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the circumstances justified granting the institution's application. The Commissioner approved the institution's request to decline to act on the access request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances warranted approval for the institution to decline to act on the request

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records related to 'Project Anecdote'. LAC extended the time by 23,725 days (approximately 65 years), citing the need to digitize 780,000 pages of records and conduct consultations. The Commissioner found that LAC did not adequately demonstrate why the processing would be limited to a single employee, why tasks were calculated consecutively rather than concurrently, or why the extension period was reasonable. Furthermore, LAC could not specify the exact number of records requiring consultation, making the consultation extension unreasonable. Consequently, the Commissioner found the extension invalid, deeming LAC to have refused access to the records. The complaint was well founded, and LAC was ordered to respond forthwith and provide regular updates and interim releases.

• Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(a) ATIA for volume of records was for a reasonable period
• Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(b) ATIA for consultations was for a reasonable period
• Whether the institution's calculation of processing time based on a single employee was reasonable
• Whether the institution's calculation of processing time based on consecutive tasks was reasonable
• Whether the institution adequately justified the length of the extension claimed

The complainant alleged that Ingenium improperly withheld information related to the loan of objects for the exhibit "Autopsy of a Murder" under various sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, Ingenium claimed exemptions under sections 14, 16(1)(c), 18(b), 18(d), and 19(1). During the investigation, Ingenium decided to no longer rely on sections 16(1)(c), 18(b), 18(d), and 19(1) (for signatures), and disclosed some information. Ingenium then invoked paragraph 68(c) concurrently with section 14 to withhold photographs. The Commissioner found that the photographs were not excluded under paragraph 68(c) as they were operational records, not the artifacts themselves. Furthermore, Ingenium failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of the photographs would cause a reasonable expectation of harm to federal-provincial affairs under section 14. The Commissioner also considered, but ultimately dismissed, arguments related to Quebec's privacy legislation and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, noting that Charter rights do not apply to the deceased and the photographs were not objectively offensive. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and Ingenium was ordered to disclose the records.

• Whether s.14 ATIA (federal-provincial affairs) was properly applied to withhold photographs
• Whether s.16(1)(c) ATIA (conduct of investigations) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to withhold signatures
• Whether s.68(c) ATIA (material placed by others in certain institutions) excluded photographs from the Act
• Whether the photographs constituted 'material placed by others' under s.68(c)
• Whether disclosure of the photographs could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of federal-provincial affairs under s.14
• Whether Quebec's privacy legislation or the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms justified withholding the information under the ATIA

An employee complained that her personal information was repeatedly disclosed to another employee with the same name, and that numerous administrative errors occurred in their respective files. The OPC found that the government institution contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by mistakenly disclosing the complainant's personal information, including her PRI, email, mailing address, and financial and health information. It also contravened subsection 6(2) of the Act by failing to ensure the accuracy of personal information used for administrative purposes, leading to errors in employee files. The OPC concluded that these issues were systemic due to human error and a lack of awareness among employees regarding privacy breach reporting procedures. The institution accepted the OPC's recommendations to prevent unauthorized disclosures and ensure data accuracy, leading to a conditionally resolved finding.

• Whether the government institution contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by mistakenly disclosing the complainant’s personal information to another employee with the same name
• Whether the government institution contravened subsection 6(2) of the Privacy Act by failing to ensure that personal information used for administrative purposes was accurate, up-to-date, and complete
• Whether the repeated disclosures and inaccuracies constituted a systemic problem
• Whether the institution's assessment of the sensitivity of the disclosed information was appropriate

An individual complained that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to ensure the accuracy of their personal information, leading to an imposter fraudulently obtaining Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments in their name. The imposter gained unauthorized access to the complainant's CRA My Account, changed direct deposit information, and applied for benefits. This resulted in the complainant receiving a tax reassessment for over $5,500. The OPC found that the CRA relied on inadequate safeguards against unauthorized access and modification, thus failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of personal information used for administrative decisions under section 6(2) of the Privacy Act. The CRA has since implemented corrective measures, including enhanced authentication processes and security for high-impact modifications. The OPC found the complaint well-founded and conditionally resolved, noting the CRA's commitments to address the issues.

• Whether the CRA took all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of personal information used for administrative purposes under subsection 6(2) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the safeguards in place at the time of the breach were adequate to prevent unauthorized access and modification of personal information
• Whether the CRA's authentication processes were sufficient to prevent identity theft and fraudulent activity
• Whether the CRA should have contacted Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) sooner regarding the complainant's identity theft
• Whether the CRA provided timely notification of the privacy breach to the affected individual
• Whether the CRA fulfilled its mandatory privacy breach reporting obligations to the OPC

A Brinks Home customer complained that he could view other customers' personal information through his online portal. The OPC investigated whether Brinks Home had adequate security safeguards and complied with breach notification requirements. Brinks Home acknowledged an employee error caused 3,340 customer records to be accessible to 102 other customers, with up to 20 potentially accessing the data. The OPC found that Brinks Home failed to adequately protect personal information, but this issue was resolved by the company's corrective actions and subsequent sale of its Canadian customer accounts. Regarding breach notification, the OPC determined that while the information was sensitive, the probability of misuse was low because the unauthorized access was by known customers, not malicious actors. Therefore, the incident did not pose a real risk of significant harm, and Brinks Home was not required to report it or notify affected individuals.

• Whether Brinks Home implemented adequate security safeguards to protect customers' personal information under Principle 4.7 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA
• Whether Brinks Home complied with breach notification requirements under section 10.1 of PIPEDA
• Whether the breach presented a real risk of significant harm (RROSH)
• Whether the personal information involved was sensitive
• Whether the probability of misuse of the personal information was low

The complainant alleged that Health Canada's 1,000-day extension of time to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request sought information regarding an application for religious exemption to serve ayahuasca. Health Canada claimed the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, citing a large volume of records (over 14,000 pages) and the need for extensive consultations, particularly with its Legal Services Unit, due to the sensitive and precedent-setting nature of the subject matter. The institution argued that processing the request within a shorter timeframe would unreasonably interfere with its operations and that consultations could not be completed within 30 days. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada met all the requirements for both paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b), concluding that the calculation of the extension was logical and supportable, and that the extension was reasonable. Consequently, the complaint was deemed not well founded, and the due date for the response remains December 19, 2025.

• Whether the access request was for a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether consultations were necessary under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCan application. The complainant specifically questioned the absence of information related to named companies and expenses. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated by reviewing CBSA's search efforts, including the program areas tasked and the search parameters. The OIC found that the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) most likely to hold relevant records, the Information, Science and Technology Branch, had searched appropriate repositories and provided 896 pages of documents for processing. Based on this, the Commissioner concluded that CBSA conducted a reasonable search. The complaint was therefore deemed not well founded.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, related to the use of Indigenous languages in House of Commons proceedings. The OIC investigation found that the claim under subsection 19(1) was no longer pursued by the complainant. PSPC failed to demonstrate that most of the withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 18(b) or 20(1)(d), except for per diem rates under paragraph 18(b). However, the Commissioner found that PSPC did not reasonably exercise its discretion when deciding to withhold these per diem rates, as it did not consider all relevant factors, including those favoring disclosure. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d) and to re-exercise its discretion regarding the per diem rates. PSPC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party)
• Whether disclosure of information could interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.18(b) ATIA (negotiations by government institutions)
• Whether disclosure of estimates for per diem fees could reasonably be expected to interfere with PSPC's negotiations under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of other information could reasonably be expected to interfere with negotiations under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose per diem rates under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC considered all relevant factors for and against disclosure when exercising discretion

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records related to social distancing guidance. PHAC claimed a 1,380-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, setting the response due date to February 11, 2027. The OIC investigated whether PHAC met the requirements for such an extension. PHAC demonstrated that its calculation was logical and supportable, and that processing the request in a shorter timeframe would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The OIC concluded that PHAC had met all the requirements of the Act for the extension. Consequently, the complaint was found to be not well founded, and the extension was deemed reasonable.

• Whether the 1,380-day extension of time claimed by PHAC under s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) was reasonable
• Whether PHAC's calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable
• Whether providing access within a materially lesser period would unreasonably interfere with PHAC's operations
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days