Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not conduct a reasonable search for a draft report prepared by the Northgate Group. The investigation found that ECCC overwrote the original draft report by saving edits directly to the USB key it was provided on. This action meant the original draft report no longer exists and could not be produced, irreversibly undermining the complainant's right of access. The OIC found the complaint well-founded, noting the importance of preserving records for transparency and accountability.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Duty to preserve records of business value
• Impact of record destruction on the right of access

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for an index of all military personnel who served in World War II. The investigation found that LAC does not possess such a complete index, as the relevant records are paper-based and were not digitized into a searchable database. While LAC can retrieve information on specific individuals, it cannot provide a comprehensive list as requested. Therefore, the complaint was found not to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Existence of the requested records within the institution's control

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) did not conduct a reasonable search for driving data, including GPS and logbook information from its fleet vehicles. The OIC investigation found that NRCan had failed to search for GPS data stored by a third-party data storage company, which was determined to be under NRCan's control. NRCan later retrieved this data and additional logbook records, which were provided to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of 'control' of records held by a third party

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the APEC conference, trade agreements, and the Hughes Inquiry. The department initially stated no records could be found. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that the appropriate sector was not tasked until much later, eventually leading to the retrieval of over 41,000 pages. The Information Commissioner found the initial search unreasonable.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Timeliness of the institution's response.
• Adequacy of the institution's estimate for processing remaining records.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. LAC initially claimed a 565-day extension, which was previously found to be reasonable. However, LAC missed the extended deadline of September 18, 2020. The Information Commissioner found that LAC was in deemed refusal and ordered the institution to complete the processing of the request forthwith.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)
• Adequacy of reasons for delay
• LAC's obligations under the Access to Information Act

The complainant requested all records of misconduct by an identified individual from the Department of National Defence (DND). DND refused to process the request, claiming it did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DND's representations were insufficient to demonstrate the request lacked detail and noted that exemptions for personal information or privacy concerns under the Privacy Act do not invalidate a request under the Access to Information Act. DND ultimately conceded the request met the requirements of section 6 and agreed to process it.

• Whether the request provided sufficient detail to identify records under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether exemptions under section 19 of the ATIA or the Privacy Act can invalidate a request under section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether the ATIA applies notwithstanding other Acts of Parliament.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access to information request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of access rights. The Commissioner found the request was an abuse of access rights due to its duplicative nature and a pattern of repeated requests for the same information, despite prior access requests and complaints. The Commissioner approved the institution's application to decline acting on the request.

• Whether the access to information request was an abuse of the right of access.
• The repetitive and duplicative nature of the access request.
• Whether the institution established that the request met the criteria under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not conduct a reasonable search for a recording of a Microsoft Teams meeting and related communications. PSPC confirmed that the meeting was not recorded and that it was informal, not involving activities or decisions of business value that would necessitate record creation. The OIC found that PSPC took reasonable steps to locate records, but none were identified.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Obligation to create records for informal meetings

The complainant alleged that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) improperly withheld the names and service numbers of Arctic Star recipients under section 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. VAC initially withheld some information but disclosed a portion during the investigation. The Information Commissioner consulted the Privacy Commissioner, who agreed that the information could be released as it fell under an exception to the Privacy Act's definition of "personal information." VAC agreed to release the remaining undisclosed information.

• Whether the names and service numbers of Arctic Star recipients constitute "personal information" under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information falls under an exception to the definition of "personal information" in the Privacy Act.
• The applicability of subsection 19(1) to historical military service information.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) claimed an unreasonable 29,200-day time extension to process a request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records. LAC identified 780,000 responsive pages but did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. As a result, LAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3). The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the time extension claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the ATIA.
• Whether LAC met the criteria for claiming a time extension due to volume.
• LAC's failure to provide adequate justification for the length of the extension.
• Application of subsection 10(3) regarding deemed refusal of access.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to a Request for Proposals (RFP) under various ATIA exemptions. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to properly exercise discretion regarding publicly available personal information and some commercial/financial information. While certain advice, recommendations, and specific third-party commercial/financial information were properly withheld, other portions were not sufficiently justified as confidential or likely to cause harm. ECCC agreed to implement the Commissioner's recommendations.

• Proper exercise of discretion for publicly available personal information (s.19(2) ATIA)
• Justification for withholding commercial/financial information under s.20(1)(b) and s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Application of advice/recommendations exemption (s.21(1)(a) ATIA)
• Confidentiality of information provided in response to an RFP

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) wrongly stated it could not process an access request for records concerning a named employee, such as leave dates, job grade, and salary history. ESDC initially claimed these records, being the personal information of another individual, were outside its control. The OIC found that while the records did contain personal information, they were nevertheless under ESDC's control as they related to institutional operations and employment purposes. ESDC ultimately agreed to process the request.

• Control of records
• Definition of 'under the control' of an institution

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they were vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of access rights. The institution also claimed it met its duty to assist. The Commissioner denied the application, finding the institution failed to prove the requests were vexatious or made in bad faith. Furthermore, the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist obligations prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

• Whether the access requests were vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access.
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.
• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its claims.
• The interpretation of 'vexatious' in the context of multiple access requests.

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation into a complaint that a federal institution failed to provide documents in French. During the investigation, the institution translated and provided the documents to the complainant. The Commissioner determined that continuing the investigation was unnecessary as the complainant had received the documents in their official language of choice.

• Whether the investigation should cease under subsection 30(4)(b) of the ATIA as unnecessary.

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld an inmate's carceral file under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The investigation found that CSC had not retrieved or processed the records before applying the exemption, meaning they could not justify withholding the information. The Information Commissioner recommended CSC retrieve, process, and respond to the request, a recommendation CSC agreed to implement.

• Application of subsection 19(1) of the ATIA (personal information)
• Proper retrieval and processing of records before applying exemptions
• Reasonable exercise of discretion under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA
• Duty to sever non-exempt information under section 25 of the ATIA