Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The institution applied to the Information Commissioner to decline to act on an access request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access information. The requester had made multiple, repetitive requests for similar information, much of which had already been provided to them. The Commissioner found the request to be an abuse of the access right due to this pattern of behaviour and the fact that the requester was not seeking new information. The Commissioner also found that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access.
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist obligations.
• Whether the access request was vexatious.

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased to investigate a complaint. The Commissioner determined the complaint was trivial, as the complainant wished to pursue the matter as a point of principle, despite the issue having already been settled and showing a seeming lack of interest in obtaining the records.

• Whether the complaint was trivial, frivolous, or vexatious under subsection 30(4)(a) of the ATIA.

The complainant requested the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA withheld the total amount of CEWS received by each company, citing exemptions under the Access to Information Act (ATIA), including subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law). The OIC found that the withheld information was about identifiable taxpayers and was prepared for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and therefore properly withheld under subsection 24(1). Consequently, the complaint was found not well founded.

• Whether the CEWS database information was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA, citing section 241 of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the information was properly withheld under paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the "E Norther" file. The RCMP initially refused to search the Legal Services Unit, claiming records would not be under their control. The Information Commissioner found this unreasonable, ordering the RCMP to search and process any responsive records found. The RCMP subsequently located additional records and provided a supplementary release to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Determination of record control for access to information purposes.
• Scope of records requested by the complainant.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning the Copyright Media Clearance Program by the extended deadline. PSPC had not provided a response when the extended deadline of September 4, 2020, expired. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded and ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the extended time limit.
• The implications of an institution failing to respond by the deadline.