Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

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

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits, as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought the total number of accommodation and exemption requests related to the CAF COVID-19 vaccination mandate, including approvals, denials, and those under review. DND received the request and extended the response period by 60 days under paragraph 9(1)(a), setting a new deadline of May 15, 2023. However, DND did not respond by this extended date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3). The investigation revealed that delays were caused by a lack of responsiveness from two Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) within DND, preventing the access to information unit from processing the request. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to complete record retrieval and provide a full response within 36 business days. DND subsequently agreed to implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the statutory time limits
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) ATIA
• Whether the delay in responding was due to internal OPI unresponsiveness