Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld records from 1959 under exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs. PCO initially withheld information but later agreed to disclose most of it, continuing to withhold specific details like Liaison Officers' titles and dissemination markings. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not properly apply the exemptions and recommended full disclosure, except for Liaison Officers' titles. PCO indicated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence)
• Whether disclosure would cause reasonable expectation of harm
• PCO's exercise of discretion in withholding information

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information regarding Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979, citing exemptions related to confidential government information and international affairs. Although PCO agreed to release some information during the investigation, it continued to withhold other details. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to properly justify the continued withholding of information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but PCO stated it would not implement this recommendation.

• Proper application of subsection 13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies)
• Proper application of subsection 15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence)
• PCO's justification for withholding titles of Liaison Officers and CSE employees
• PCO's justification for withholding distribution markings and intelligence report titles

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under sections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1963. The Information Commissioner found that the exemptions were not properly applied to the withheld information and recommended disclosure. PCO indicated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Whether PCO properly applied subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Whether PCO properly applied subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence).
• Whether the exemptions claimed by PCO were justified given the age of the records and previous disclosures.
• PCO's decision not to implement the Commissioner's recommendations.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada improperly withheld a settlement agreement with the Squamish Nation and related documents. The institution claimed exemptions related to financial impact on a third party, interference with negotiations, and solicitor-client/litigation privilege. The Information Commissioner found that the institution failed to demonstrate that these exemptions applied, noting that much of the information was already public and that claims of harm were speculative. The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the records, but the institution later stated it would not comply.

• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with negotiations).
• Whether the settlement agreement and related records were properly withheld under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege).
• The institution's refusal to comply with the Commissioner's disclosure order.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) did not respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit and improperly requested additional clarifications. The request concerned information about ESDC's grants and contributions program for workplace opportunities since 2014. The OIC found that ESDC's requests for clarification were not justified and that the original request provided sufficient detail. The OIC determined that ESDC failed to respond within the legislated timeframe due to numerous interactions and delays in retrieving records.

• Timeliness of response to access request (ATIA s. 7)
• Proper use of clarification requests (ATIA s. 6)
• Adequacy of detail in access request

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct a reasonable search for intelligence assessments on Iraq. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated and found that the institution did not retrieve all relevant records and failed to provide representations on its search efforts. The OIC ordered National Defence to conduct a second search, which located three additional records. National Defence agreed to implement the order.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Institution's failure to provide representations to the OIC
• Scope of records responsive to the access request

The complainant, as executor of a deceased individual's estate, requested personal information from the Department of National Defence (DND). DND refused to disclose most information, citing Privacy Act exemptions and arguing the request didn't meet the criteria for accessing information on behalf of a deceased person. The OPC found that the complainant was entitled to make the request for estate administration purposes and that DND failed to conduct an adequate search. DND agreed to conduct searches and provide a new response, leading to the complaint being conditionally resolved.

• Eligibility of an estate executor to request personal information of a deceased individual.
• Proper application of section 26 of the Privacy Act (disclosure of personal information about others).
• Adequacy of DND's search for requested records.
• DND's obligation to process formal access requests even if informal avenues exist.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit required by the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to specific committees. The investigation found that CSE did not respond by the deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. CSE cited processing delays, extensive consultations with other institutions, and staffing issues for the significant delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CSE to respond within 72 business days, but CSE indicated it would seek judicial review.

• Failure to respond to access request within statutory time limits.
• Delay in processing and consulting with other institutions.
• Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed response date.
• The institution's decision to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's order.