Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

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

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. However, the Commissioner found that the institution's submissions and evidence were insufficient to demonstrate that the access request met the criteria for abuse of right. The Commissioner noted that the institution appeared to confuse the issue of whether records were under its control with the question of abuse of right, and also failed to demonstrate any attempt to assist the requester. Consequently, the Commissioner decided that the application did not merit further consideration and denied the institution's request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
• Whether the institution attempted to assist the requester

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning historical records of the Intelligence Advisory Committee. During the investigation, DND issued two supplementary responses, disclosing additional information, and the complainant narrowed the complaint to specific pages withheld under subsection 15(1). DND proposed a third supplementary response, agreeing to disclose more information but maintaining some redactions under subsection 15(1). The Information Commissioner concluded that the remaining withheld information did not meet the requirements of subsection 15(1), particularly regarding the absence of apparent harm from disclosure. The Commissioner recommended DND disclose all remaining information withheld under subsection 15(1). However, DND notified the Commissioner that it would not implement this recommendation. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether information was properly withheld under s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs and national security)
• Whether information was properly withheld under s.19(1) ATIA (personal information)
• Whether disclosure of the remaining information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security
• Whether DND provided sufficient evidence of harm to justify the s.15(1) exemption
• Whether DND reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information