Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

An individual complained that a private swimming pool required parents to consent to the use of their children's photos and videos for promotional purposes as a condition of service for swimming lessons. The complainant argued this violated PIPEDA's consent requirements, specifically Principle 4.3.3, which prohibits requiring consent for information beyond what is necessary for the service. The swimming pool contended that the photo policy was a reasonable business need for promotion and staff training, and that tracking individual consent would be burdensome. The OPC found that images of children in swim attire are sensitive personal information and that requiring consent for promotional photos and staff training videos was not strictly necessary for providing swimming lessons. The OPC concluded that this practice contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3.3 and 4.3.6. The complaint was found to be well-founded and resolved after the swimming pool agreed to implement an opt-in photo policy.

• Whether requiring consent for promotional photos and videos of children as a condition of service for swimming lessons contravenes Principle 4.3.3 of PIPEDA
• Whether images of children in swim attire constitute sensitive personal information
• Whether the collection, use, or disclosure of images for promotional or staff training purposes is strictly necessary for the provision of swimming lessons
• Whether the organization offered individuals a choice regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of images for promotional or staff training purposes
• Whether the organization should have sought express consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of images of children

The complainant requested a full Issue Detail Report for a food complaint from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The CFIA withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information), 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information), and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged that the CFIA improperly used 'negative' (white) redactions, making it difficult to identify withheld portions. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1). The Commissioner found that the CFIA failed to meet its duty to assist by using negative redactions and recommended they cease this practice. For the third-party exemptions, the Commissioner determined that most of the information did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c), as the institution and third party did not sufficiently establish confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner ordered the CFIA to disclose most of the withheld third-party information, with specific exceptions for supplier names, procedural details, and product weighing processes. The CFIA agreed to implement the order and recommendation.

• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA's use of negative (white) redactions was appropriate under s.4(2.1) ATIA (duty to assist)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party for s.20(1)(c) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning expenses incurred for providing security to internationally protected persons visiting Canada. The request sought all records, including breakdowns by visitor, from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. In response, the RCMP provided only a two-page summary of costs, arguing that most records would likely be exempt or excluded under the Act, and that generating a summary was more expedient than reviewing an estimated 150,000 pages. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP did not demonstrate how the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records, nor did it adequately justify not identifying and locating the full records based on potential exemptions. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the RCMP was ordered to conduct a new search and provide a new response.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether providing a summary of records fulfills the obligation to search for 'all records'
• Whether the potential for exemptions justifies not identifying and locating all responsive records

The complainant requested records related to CSL Group Inc., specifically policy and workplace health and safety committee reports from 2012 to 2022. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) withheld information under several provisions of the Access to Information Act and was also alleged to have conducted an unreasonable search for records. The Commissioner found that ESDC failed to justify most of its exemption claims, including those under s.16(1)(c), s.16(2), s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), s.21(1)(b), and s.23. While some personal information and specific recommendations were properly withheld under s.19(1) and s.21(1)(a) respectively, ESDC's exercise of discretion for other s.21(1)(a) information was deemed unreasonable. Furthermore, ESDC failed to demonstrate that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose most of the withheld information, re-exercise discretion for certain records, and conduct a new, reasonable search for responsive records. ESDC notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.16(1)(c) ATIA (law enforcement, conduct of investigations)
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence)
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA (personal information)
• Whether the corporate address on page 136 constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether non-personal information on business cards on page 138 constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA regarding personal information
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact or injure competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations)
• Whether the information constitutes advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(a) ATIA regarding advice or recommendations
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the information constitutes accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether the information is subject to solicitor-client privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether the information is subject to litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether ESDC conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office's (PCO) record-keeping practices for appointment processes did not comply with the Access to Information Act (ATIA), specifically regarding the disposal of interview notes. PCO stated that selection members take notes during interviews to aid deliberations, but these are considered transitory records and are disposed of after the final advice letter to the Minister is prepared, which constitutes the official record. The complainant also suggested PCO's practices might constitute an offense under the ATIA. The investigation found no evidence that records were destroyed with the intent to deny a right of access. Instead, the interview notes were deemed transitory records used in preparing advice letters. The Commissioner concluded that there was no obligation under the ATIA for PCO to retain these notes, nor did their destruction violate the Act. The complaint was therefore not well founded.

• Whether PCO's record-keeping practices for appointment processes comply with the ATIA
• Whether interview notes taken by selection members are transitory records
• Whether there was an obligation under the ATIA for PCO to retain interview notes
• Whether the destruction of interview notes constituted an offense under s.67.1 of the ATIA (destruction with intent to deny access)

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and failed to conduct a reasonable search for records. The request sought documents related to stakeholder consultations on amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations concerning COVID-19 drugs. The OIC found that neither Health Canada nor the third parties established that the names of the third parties met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), specifically regarding whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical, and whether it was confidential. The OIC also concluded that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search, noting issues with search parameters, lack of documentation, and failure to locate expected records. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the names of the third parties and conduct a new, comprehensive search for records. Health Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether the names of third parties constitute financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the names of third parties were confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third parties consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether Health Canada conducted a reasonable search for records

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, citing subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution argued that the request was vexatious and constituted an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner reviewed the institution's submission and found that the institution successfully demonstrated that the access request in question was indeed an abuse of the right of access. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the circumstances justified granting the institution's request to decline to process the access request. The application was therefore granted, allowing the institution to refuse to act on the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to IAC reports concerning the USSR and former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia from 1990. Initially, PCO provided only minutes, leading to the complaint. During the investigation, PCO conducted an additional search, releasing 1,352 pages, but the complainant maintained that several specific reports were still missing. The OIC was not satisfied with the initial search efforts and requested further representations from PCO. PCO subsequently identified that some of the missing reports had been previously withheld in their entirety, some were not in their holdings, and 100 additional pages covering other requested documents were located. The Commissioner found that PCO had now conducted a reasonable search and ordered PCO to process and release the newly identified records by January 22, 2026. PCO agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to the "Cedar LNG" export facility project. The investigation found that ECCC did not respond by the required date, attributing the delay to the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) and the ATIP office's failure to provide and process records in a timely manner. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered ECCC to issue interim responses for documents not requiring consultation and to provide a complete response by March 16, 2026. The Commissioner also recommended that ECCC develop processes to ensure timely record provision from OPIs and establish performance indicators for accountability. ECCC agreed to implement the orders and recommendations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Environment and Climate Change Canada responded to the access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay in responding constituted a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delays caused by Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) in providing records were acceptable
• Whether the proposed timeline for completing the review and consultations was reasonable

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under several sections of the Access to Information Act related to financial statements for the leaseback of seven specific buildings. The OIC investigated claims under paragraphs 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b). The complainant withdrew their allegation regarding subsection 19(1) and certain banking information. The OIC found that PSPC's arguments for withholding the information were largely speculative and lacked sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the exemptions claimed, particularly concerning the potential for material harm or interference with negotiations. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC could not demonstrate that it met all the requirements of the exemptions, especially given the public interest in transparency regarding significant public funds. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and PSPC was ordered to disclose most of the withheld information. PSPC subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.

• Whether s.18(d) government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual, was properly applied
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm government financial interests
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm the Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could result in an individual or corporation receiving an undue benefit
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, was properly applied
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party, was properly applied
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could injure the competitive position of the third party
• Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party, was properly applied
• Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations under s.20(1)(d)
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(d) could interfere with those negotiations
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations, was properly applied
• Whether the information is an account of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b)
• Whether the information reveals the nature of deliberations under s.21(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly refused to issue a new response letter after providing contextual information in its initial response to an access request. The request sought policy records, regulations, directives, orders, and instructions concerning the authority to generate Branch Standing Orders within the Canadian Armed Forces. DND's initial response stated that no responsive records were found but included additional information, such as hyperlinks to publicly available documents and an explanation using cautious language like "might," to assist the requester. The complainant argued this contextual information was speculative and not based on documented records, thus contravening DND's duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DND's inclusion of supplementary information, clearly distinguished from the official response, was an attempt to assist the requester in good faith and did not misrepresent the existence of records or create new ones. Therefore, DND was not obligated to issue a new response letter.

• Whether National Defence improperly refused to issue a new response letter
• Whether the inclusion of contextual information in a 'no records' response contravenes the duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the contextual information was speculative and not grounded in documented records
• Whether the institution's response was complete and appropriate under subsection 10(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions concerning the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. The request covered records from July 8, 2022, to July 5, 2023. The investigation found that while the RCMP tasked relevant offices, these offices failed to search for records within the full specified timeframe. Specifically, Federal Policing and National Division did not search for records created after certain dates within the request's scope, and the Commissioner's Office's search timeframe was unclear. Furthermore, a 4600-page Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file, which the RCMP deemed irrelevant due to its 'occurrence time' being outside the request's timeframe, was found by the Commissioner to be relevant and to contain actions reported within the requested period. The Commissioner concluded that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search and ordered a new search and response. The RCMP agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether Federal Policing searched for records up to July 5, 2023
• Whether National Division searched for records created after May 29, 2023
• Whether the Commissioner's Office's search timeframe was adequate
• Whether the 4600-page PROS Occurrence Report was relevant to the request timeframe

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought "Report 002-18: The militia movement, the III%, and the threat to DND/CAF" and associated documents. The investigation confirmed that DND did not respond by the deadline of April 9, 2025, and had not extended the timeline. The delay was attributed to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), which had not yet retrieved the records despite estimating only 13 pages. The Information Commissioner found this delay unacceptable and emphasized the collective responsibility of all DND personnel to respect access rights. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period mandated by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a Canadian Forces National Counter-Intelligence Unit (CFNCIU) document titled "Defining IMVE," dated November 8, 2018. DND received the request on March 10, 2025, making the response deadline April 9, 2025, but failed to respond by this date or to issue a valid extension. The investigation revealed that the delay was due to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), not providing the requested records to DND's Directorate Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP). The Commissioner found this delay unacceptable, especially given the document was estimated to be only six pages long. Consequently, DND was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days, and DND agreed to comply.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning communications between Transport Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) related to Class D operation with a single engine helicopter. Initially, Transport Canada located only two pages. During the OIC's investigation, Transport Canada conducted additional searches, identifying approximately 690 more responsive pages. While the institution argued that consultations with the RCMP would take at least six months, the Commissioner found that a reasonable search had ultimately been conducted. However, the Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to process these additional records and provide a new response to the complainant within 60 business days, emphasizing that the institution bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring consultations do not unduly delay access. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Transport Canada conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the consultation process with the RCMP unduly delayed access