Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request sought records concerning parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, related agreements, and the use of foreign workers. The investigation found that ISED did not respond by the required date and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to a lack of responsiveness from one of its offices. The Information Commissioner ordered ISED to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response under the ATIA
• Responsibility for delays within an institution

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information related to submissions for using Anafranil / Altius Clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder, citing exemptions related to third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. Both Health Canada and the third party indicated that due to the passage of time, the exemptions no longer applied. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Health Canada to disclose the withheld information, which the institution agreed to do.

• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the passage of time rendered the claimed exemptions inapplicable.
• The burden on institutions and third parties to justify exemptions.
• The need for a clear and direct connection between disclosure and expected harm to justify exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to commercial fishing agreements with Eskasoni First Nation (EFN). The information was claimed to be exempt under provisions related to personal information, and confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and potential financial impact on a third party. The Information Commissioner found that while some information met the criteria for personal information, much of the financial and commercial information was either publicly available, not truly confidential, or not supplied by a third party. The Commissioner also found the claim of financial impact was speculative. Therefore, the complaint was well-founded, and DFO was ordered to disclose most of the withheld information.

• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Confidentiality and 'supplied by a third party' requirements under paragraph 20(1)(b)

An institution applied for approval to decline processing an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access due to its excessive breadth and the burden it would place on the small organization. The requested records spanned multiple years and covered broad categories related to rare diseases and medication coverage. The Information Commissioner agreed that the request was overly broad and burdensome, constituting an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also found that the institution had met its duty to assist the requester.

• Is the access request an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA?
• Would responding to the request overburden the institution?
• Is the request overly broad?
• Did the institution meet its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1)?

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took an unreasonable amount of time to extend its response deadline for an access request concerning documents related to the parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN. The Information Commissioner found that while PSPC demonstrated the need for consultations due to a large volume of records, it failed to justify the 150-day extension for these consultations, relying instead on service standards rather than a genuine assessment of the time required. Consequently, the extension was deemed unreasonable, and PSPC was ordered to provide a complete response by June 1, 2026.

• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations
• Institution's failure to demonstrate genuine assessment of time required for consultations
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) due to unreasonable extension