Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from November 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not initially conduct a reasonable search. During the investigation, PCO agreed to conduct a new search, which resulted in the retrieval of additional responsive records. PCO also indicated that it was consulting with Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence regarding the processing of these records. The Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records, provide access to them, and issue a supplementary response. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order and subsequently issued a supplementary response. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the Privy Council Office conducted a reasonable search for records under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the creation of the Intelligence Coordinator position between September 1984 and February 1985, specifically mentioning a 'Memorandum for the Intelligence Coordinator' dated November 27, 1984. Initially, PCO did not provide documentation of its search efforts, leading the OIC to conclude that a reasonable search had not been demonstrated. Following the OIC's intervention, PCO conducted secondary searches, identifying 187 additional pages of responsive records. PCO committed to reviewing these records and providing a supplementary response to the access request. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded and ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and issue a supplementary response by December 10, 2024. PCO subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

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

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a review of the Canadian intelligence program by the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) for the Cabinet Committee for Security and Intelligence (CCSI) between January 1972 and June 1975. The investigation found that PCO's initial search was inadequate, as Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records. The complainant specifically identified several missing documents and references to unreleased annexes within the records provided. Following the Office of the Information Commissioner's (OIC) intervention, PCO conducted a secondary search, which identified an additional 265 pages of responsive records. Although the OIC was satisfied with the subsequent search, the complaint was deemed well founded due to the initial failure. The Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all additional records and provide a supplementary response by March 18, 2025, which PCO agreed to implement.

• Whether the Privy Council Office conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request
• Whether specific requested records were omitted from the initial response
• Whether referenced annexes and supporting papers were missing from the initial release

A federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the request, for emails and chat messages from a specific office over a two-month period, was too broad and would result in over 75,800 pages, taking an estimated 12.6 years to process. It argued this would severely disrupt its operations, particularly a small office with limited resources, and hinder its ATIP office's ability to respond to other requests. The requester disputed the institution's capacity estimates and argued that exclusions and duplicates would significantly reduce the volume. The Commissioner found that the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that acting on the request would overburden its operations or hinder other requesters' rights, noting that the institution's ATIP processing capacity seemed understated and that no evidence of backlog was provided. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the estimated volume of records would overburden the institution
• Whether the institution's efforts to assist the requester were sufficient
• Whether processing the request would severely impact the OPI's ability to advance its mandate
• Whether processing the request would cause undue strain on the ATIP office and hinder other requesters' rights of access
• Whether the institution's estimated processing capacity was accurate

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 597 access requests. The institution argued that these requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request and were vexatious. The Commissioner found that the institution successfully demonstrated that 550 of the 597 requests were indeed an abuse of the right to make a request. Consequently, the Commissioner granted approval for the institution to decline to act on these 550 requests. However, the institution failed to prove that the remaining 47 requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right. Therefore, the Commissioner did not grant approval for the institution to decline to act on those 47 requests. The application was partially granted.

• Whether 597 access requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether 597 access requests were vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage (PCH) failed to conduct reasonable searches for records in response to thirteen access requests concerning lobbying communications from 2020 and 2021. While the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) that were tasked conducted adequate searches, the Information Commissioner found that PCH did not task all relevant OPIs that were likely to hold responsive records. Specifically, the Corporate Secretariat and the Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks OPI were not consistently tasked despite being identified as likely holders of records related to ministerial staff and specific employees, respectively. The Commissioner concluded that PCH did not conduct reasonable searches for records. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered PCH to task the appropriate OPIs, conduct new searches, and provide access to any additional responsive records.

• Whether Canadian Heritage conducted reasonable searches for records in response to multiple access requests
• Whether all Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) likely to hold relevant records were tasked with searching

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought various records from September 1, 2022, onwards, concerning committee studies of foreign election interference. PCO had extended the response period by 330 days, making the deadline March 14, 2024, but failed to respond by this date. The investigation found that PCO did not meet its obligation, attributing the delay to a large volume of records (5,988 pages) and the ATIP office's failure to initiate timely consultations with eight other government departments. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 15, 2024. PCO subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order and respond by the specified date. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for permits, contracts, modifications, letters, and violation notices sent to G&R Recyclage in Kanasatake, as well as internal correspondence about the company since 2014. ISC had initially extended the response period by 210 days, making the deadline January 19, 2024, but failed to respond by that date. The investigation revealed that ISC was processing over 17,000 pages of records, with 9,000 pages already reviewed, and required consultations with third parties. The Information Commissioner found that the suggested response date of December 12, 2024, was reasonable given the volume and complexity of records and the need for third-party consultations. The Commissioner ordered ISC to issue required third-party notices by October 1, 2024, and provide a complete response by December 12, 2024. ISC agreed to implement the order. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the extension of time taken by Indigenous Services Canada under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act was unreasonable
• Whether Indigenous Services Canada met its obligation to respond to the request within the extended period
• Whether the proposed date for a final response (December 12, 2024) is reasonable given the volume and complexity of records and the need for third-party consultations
• Whether third-party consultations are necessary for the requested records
• Whether Indigenous Services Canada must issue required notices to third parties by October 1, 2024

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought electronic records mentioning specific terms, including "Democracy Watch," from October 2015 to April 2023. PCO received the request in April 2023 and extended the response period by 210 days, setting a new deadline of December 21, 2023, but failed to respond by this date. PCO attributed the delay to limited resources, high workload, and the need for extensive consultations, estimating a response by January 2025. The Commissioner found PCO's estimated timeline unreasonable, noting that the institution had committed inadequate resources to processing the request. The Commissioner concluded that PCO had not met its obligations under the Act and ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 30, 2024, with interim releases where possible. PCO subsequently agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended time limits under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's proposed timeline for response was reasonable

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to "ICSI Meetings 2001." PCO had extended the response period by 350 days, making the deadline August 17, 2023, but failed to respond by this date. The investigation revealed that the delay was due to PCO's ATIP office not initiating consultations and processing the request in a timely manner, citing employee shortages and high workload. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not meet its obligation to respond within the statutory time limits, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner emphasized PCO's ultimate responsibility to ensure timely responses, even when consultations are involved. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's reasons for delay (employee shortages, high workload, outstanding consultations) justify the failure to respond

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought records from specific dates concerning the operation and restrictions of certain aircraft, received and distributed by a particular employee. Transport Canada received the request on January 4, 2024, but did not issue a response within the 30-day timeframe, nor did it seek an extension or transfer the request. The investigation revealed that the program area took three months to locate 148 pages of potentially responsive records. Transport Canada subsequently identified 12 pages as potential Cabinet confidences and initiated consultations, projecting a response date of October 18, 2024. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable, given the small volume of records, and concluded that Transport Canada failed to meet its obligations under the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to provide a complete response.

• Whether Transport Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Transport Canada validly extended the 30-day period for responding under section 9 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Transport Canada is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit, improperly placed the request on hold, and did not meet its duty to assist the requester. The request sought records related to COVID-19 vaccination mandates for federal employees and travel. The Commissioner found that Justice improperly placed the request on an indefinite hold, as there is no provision in the Act for such an action. Justice also failed to provide updates and assistance to the complainant, thereby not meeting its obligations under subsection 4(2.1). Furthermore, Justice did not respond to the request by the statutory deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. The Commissioner rejected Justice's estimated 14-year processing time as unreasonable and ordered Justice to remove the hold, provide a complete response by May 17, 2029, and issue regular updates and interim releases.

• Whether the institution responded within the time limit set out in section 7 ATIA
• Whether the institution took an invalid extension of time under section 9 ATIA
• Whether the institution improperly placed the access request on hold
• Whether the institution improperly communicated by phone
• Whether the institution met its responsibilities under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA to assist the requester
• Whether there was evidence of an offence under section 67.1 ATIA

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 all documentation related to unidentified objects shot down in Yukon and over Lake Huron in February 2023, including emails, photos, and reports. The investigation confirmed that DND received the request on March 16, 2023, and did not extend the response period, making the due date April 17, 2023. DND failed to respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3). The Commissioner found the delay by DND's Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) in providing responsive records unacceptable, noting that one OPI provided incomplete records and another none at all. The Commissioner concluded that DND did not meet its obligations under the Act. 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 required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) due to failure to respond within statutory timelines

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, a violation under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought all documents related to House of Commons committee studies concerning the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation between February 1, 2023, and July 14, 2023. The OIC's investigation revealed that while 5,782 pages of responsive records had been identified, one of CRA's Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) had not yet provided an additional 4,715 pages for review. Despite the outstanding work, the Information Commissioner found that CRA had not met its obligation to respond within the extended period, deeming it a refusal of access under subsection 10(3). The Commissioner ordered CRA to issue a complete response by January 8, 2025, and made recommendations for improving internal processes and accountability for timely record provision. CRA agreed to implement the order and consider the recommendations.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) due to failure to respond within the statutory timeframe

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

• Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances warranted approval to decline to act on the request