Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated a complaint that Rogers Communications Inc. improperly enrolled a customer in its voiceprint authentication program, Voice ID, without her consent. The OPC found that while the purpose of the program was appropriate, Rogers failed to obtain valid and meaningful consent for the collection and use of voiceprints, which are considered sensitive biometric information. Rogers also did not provide a clear opt-out mechanism and improperly retained voiceprints. Rogers committed to significant changes to its program, leading the OPC to find the consent and retention issues well-founded and conditionally resolved.

• Appropriate purpose for collecting voiceprints
• Obtaining valid and meaningful consent for voiceprints
• Adequacy of opt-out mechanisms
• Retention of voiceprints after opt-out

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld information related to Board of Directors meetings, citing exemptions under sections 21 and 26 of the Access to Information Act. TMC later claimed a total of 15 exemptions and failed to provide sufficient justification or detail for withholding the information. The Commissioner found TMC's application of exemptions was incorrect and disclosure was warranted. However, after the Commissioner issued an intended order, TMC released additional information, satisfying the complainant, and rendering a formal order unnecessary.

• Adequacy of justification for claimed exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion
• Application of severability principle
• Failure to identify specific withheld information and third parties

The complainant alleged that the Department of Finance Canada failed to respond to a request for information about a backgrounder document within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that significant delays were caused by an internal branch failing to provide records to the ATIP office in a timely manner. The Commissioner ordered the Minister of Finance to provide a response forthwith, noting that the ongoing delay was unacceptable.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Internal delays in record retrieval and processing
• Application of subsection 10(3) (deemed refusal)

The complainant filed four complaints alleging the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to access requests within the 30-day time limit. The OIC found that the RCMP did not provide adequate justification for the significant delays, despite acknowledging operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to issue a response to each request.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit under section 7 of the ATIA
• Adequacy of justification for delays due to COVID-19 operational challenges
• Requirement for institutions to respond even when records are not yet retrieved

The complainant filed a complaint under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) concerning an institution's response to their request. The institution argued the complaint was filed outside the 60-day time limit stipulated by section 31 of the ATIA. The complainant acknowledged the delay but requested the Information Commissioner extend the deadline due to the institution's undated covering letter and the misplacement of the response. The Commissioner rejected the complaint, stating she lacks the authority to extend statutory timeframes.

• Timeliness of complaint submission
• Commissioner's discretion to extend statutory time limits
• Interpretation of section 31 of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) obstructed their right of access by unduly delaying the processing of a request for COVID-19 pandemic contracts. The investigation found significant failures in PSPC's processing, including grouping requests incorrectly and poor record management by the office of primary interest, leading to a year-long delay. While the delay was found to be a failure to provide timely access, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of intent to conceal records.

• Timeliness of access request processing
• Obligation to assist requesters
• Allegations of obstruction and concealment of records
• Proper handling of access requests by offices of primary interest

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) improperly withheld records concerning increased sick leave use before retirement, citing exemptions related to negotiations, advice, and personnel plans. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope. The Information Commissioner found that TBS failed to demonstrate that disclosing the statistical and dated information would harm negotiations or personnel plans, as claimed under various ATIA exemptions. TBS did not provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the records.

• Applicability of paragraph 18(b) (negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(c) (plans for negotiations)
• Applicability of paragraph 21(1)(d) (personnel plans)

The complainant requested specific case information from the Department of Justice Canada (Justice), concerning cases filed with the Tax Court of Canada related to section 245 of the Income Tax Act. Justice withheld the records, citing solicitor-client and litigation privilege under section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that Justice failed to establish that the identification of the responsive records hinged on privileged information and recommended full disclosure. Justice declined to implement the recommendation.

• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether the identification of responsive records required privileged information
• Whether the information in the iCase database was subject to privilege
• Whether disclosed pleadings would indirectly reveal privileged information

The complainant alleged that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), in its role as administrator of the federal access to information system, failed to provide adequate support to government institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This, the complainant argued, impeded the right of access to government information. The investigation found that TBS engaged in reminding institutions of their obligations, clarified responsibilities, and addressed misinterpretations. Given TBS's limited authority over institutions' day-to-day operations, the Commissioner concluded that the support provided was adequate, and the complaint was not well-founded.

• Adequacy of TBS support to government institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Impact of TBS support on the right of access to government information.
• Whether TBS's actions were contrary to the principles of openness and transparency.

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards under paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the records were primarily factual and did not meet the requirements for either exemption. Although the OIC intended to order the release of the records, IRCC released them voluntarily before the order was issued.

• Whether the Fee Analysis Reports and fee monitoring dashboards constitute 'advice or recommendations' under paragraph 21(1)(a) of the ATIA.
• Whether the records were prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for exemption under section 23 of the ATIA.
• Whether IRCC's search for records was complete.

The complainant requested a contract between Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and a third party, Presidia Security Consulting Inc. The complainant alleged that CSC improperly withheld information under sections 19(1) (personal information) and 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) (third-party commercial information and financial impact), and 21(1)(a) (advice) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under section 19(1), other information was improperly withheld under section 20. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered CSC to release the specific information previously withheld under section 20.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA (personal information).
• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the ATIA (third-party commercial information and financial impact).
• Whether paragraph 21(1)(a) of the ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied.
• Whether the institution properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada's 510-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request concerned records on new testing and quarantine measures for non-essential international air travel. Transport Canada argued the extension was needed due to the large volume of records, the complexity of searches, necessary consultations with other government bodies, and third-party representations. The Commissioner found that the institution adequately demonstrated the necessity and reasonableness of the time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), and 9(1)(c) of the Act.

• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) due to volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) due to consultations
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(c) due to third-party consultations
• Proper notification of time extension

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for information concerning Soviet Bloc deception practices. LAC initially withheld the entire record but later released some information, continuing to withhold portions under subsection 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemption, noting that much of the subject matter was already in the public domain. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but LAC stated it would not implement the recommendation.

• Application of subsection 15(1) (national security) exemption
• Availability of information in the public domain
• LAC's failure to demonstrate potential harm from disclosure