Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records detailing annual amounts paid due to sexual harassment or assault from 2009 to 2020. The RCMP explained that its general ledger does not record the nature of settlement claims, and they do not maintain a separate list of such payments. Therefore, the RCMP could only identify and disclose information related to publicly known class action settlements. The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the RCMP conducted a reasonable search given these limitations.

• Whether the RCMP conducted a reasonable search for records.
• The ability of the RCMP to search its general ledger for specific types of claims.
• The existence of alternative methods for the RCMP to identify and locate responsive records.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information related to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project under several sections of the Access to Information Act, including those related to facilitating offences, personal information, third-party commercial information, and advice or deliberations. ECCC initially withheld records under these exemptions, including a scientific manuscript. During the investigation, ECCC agreed to release the manuscript and some other withheld information. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering ECCC to disclose the manuscript and correct inconsistencies in disclosure.

• Applicability of exemption for facilitating the commission of an offence (s. 16(2) ATIA)
• Applicability of exemption for personal information (s. 19(1) ATIA)
• Applicability of exemption for confidential third-party scientific information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Applicability of exemptions for advice and deliberations (ss. 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) ATIA)

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada improperly withheld records related to the Alternate Independent Process for St-Anne’s Residential School hearings. The records were claimed to be exempt under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including solicitor-client and litigation privilege (section 23). The Information Commissioner found that the Department did not adequately establish solicitor-client or litigation privilege for many of the withheld records, particularly those communicated outside the scope of the solicitor-client relationship or involving parties without sufficiently common interests. The Commissioner recommended the disclosure of information not meeting the exemption criteria.

• Applicability of solicitor-client privilege
• Applicability of litigation privilege
• Demonstration of common interest privilege
• Reasonable exercise of discretion to withhold records

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received a complaint alleging that a federal institution did not respond to an access request within an extended timeframe and raised concerns about the institution's communication conduct. The OIC accepted the complaint regarding the delay but found the complaint about inappropriate conduct inadmissible as it was filed outside the 60-day time limit. The OIC determined the time limit for the conduct complaint began on May 2, 2022, when the institution first communicated its proposed response, not when the extended response deadline passed.

• Timeliness of filing a complaint regarding alleged inappropriate communication
• Determination of when the 60-day time limit to file a complaint begins
• The impact of an institution's communication conduct on the complainant's awareness of grounds for complaint

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information from a non-clinical overview of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, citing exemptions for confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information (paragraph 20(1)(b)). The Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) found that the information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) at the time the request was processed. The OIC also concluded that the conditions under which Health Canada would be required to exercise discretion to release the information (subsections 20(5) and 20(6)) were not met. Therefore, the complaint was found not to be well founded.

• Whether the withheld information qualifies as confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the conditions for exercising discretion to release information under subsections 20(5) and 20(6) of the Access to Information Act were met.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under section 23 (Solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act. While the information met the requirements for solicitor-client privilege, LAC did not demonstrate it had reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. The Information Commissioner ordered LAC to re-exercise its discretion, considering all relevant factors. LAC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the withheld information met the requirements for solicitor-client privilege.
• Whether LAC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose the information.
• Consideration of the historical significance of the records and the mandate of Library and Archives Canada in exercising discretion.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) inadvertently disclosed the email addresses of 636 individuals seeking emergency assistance related to the situation in Afghanistan. These individuals were included in the "TO" field of mass emails, rather than the "BCC" field, exposing their contact information to other recipients. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that IRCC contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act due to insufficient controls to prevent such disclosures and that the complaint was well-founded. While IRCC took immediate steps to mitigate the breach, the OPC emphasized the need for robust preventative measures.

• Disclosure of personal information without consent
• Adequacy of preventative measures for mass emails
• Mitigation of harm to affected individuals
• Risk of recurrence of similar breaches

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly excluded weather radar data, claiming it was available for purchase. ECCC demonstrated that both real-time and archived weather data are offered through a cost-recovery system. As the information was available for purchase, it was excluded from the application of the Access to Information Act.

• Whether the exclusion of material available for purchase under paragraph 68(a) of the ATIA was properly applied.
• Whether real-time data, which must be created after the request is made, falls under the scope of the ATIA.
• Whether the cost-recovery system for accessing weather data renders the information 'available for purchase' under section 68(a).

The Information Commissioner determined that a complaint was inadmissible because it was not filed within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The complainant argued that the time limit should start from when they recovered a deleted email from the institution, but the Commissioner found that the period for submitting the complaint began the day after the institution's response was received. The Act does not grant the Commissioner the power to extend this mandatory time limit.

• Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
• Interpretation of 'in any other case' in section 31
• Commencement date for the 60-day complaint period

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint where the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) disclosed a workplace review report containing an individual's personal information to the Information Commissioner. The OPC found that while disclosing information related to the complainant's access to information requests was a consistent use, disclosing the workplace review report was not. The CBSA contravened the Privacy Act by disclosing this report without consent and for a purpose inconsistent with its original collection.

• Whether disclosing a workplace review report to the Information Commissioner constituted a 'consistent use' under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.
• The distinction between information collected for managing workplace conflict versus information collected for responding to access to information requests.
• Whether the CBSA reasonably expected the disclosure of the workplace review report.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records concerning the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft system (MCAS) under exemptions related to personal information, trade secrets, and financial impact on a third party. The Information Commissioner found that the institution and the third party (Boeing) failed to demonstrate that all withheld information met the criteria for these exemptions. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose specific information and to re-exercise its discretion regarding disclosure for public safety reasons.

• Whether withheld information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether withheld information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets).
• Whether withheld information met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 20(6) for disclosure in the public interest.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to provide records related to a designated substances report. PSPC provided some records but claimed others were not under its control. The Information Commissioner found that these records, although not in PSPC's physical possession, were under its control due to contractual obligations with a third-party contractor. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to retrieve and process these records.

• Whether records held by a third-party contractor were under the control of PSPC for the purposes of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether PSPC conducted a reasonable search for the requested records.

The complainant alleged that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) improperly withheld records related to an aircraft incident under various exemptions related to personal information and confidential third-party information. The OIC found that TSB failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the records under the claimed exemptions. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered TSB to disclose the records, and TSB agreed to comply.

• Failure to meet the requirements for withholding information under section 19(1) (personal information) of the ATIA.
• Failure to meet the requirements for withholding information under section 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the ATIA.
• Failure to meet the requirements for withholding information under section 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the ATIA.
• Failure to meet the requirements for withholding information under section 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) improperly withheld records concerning NRCan's representatives on the Board of Governors of the Maritime College of Forest Technology (MCFT). The exemptions cited were paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, relating to confidential third-party information, financial impact, and negotiations. The Commissioner found that NRCan and MCFT failed to meet the criteria for these exemptions, particularly regarding confidentiality and the reasonable expectation of harm. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered NRCan to disclose the withheld information, except for any personal information or legal advice/litigation privilege that was also withheld.

• Confidentiality requirements for paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Reasonable expectation of harm for paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d)
• Burden of proof on institution and third party
• Control of records

The complainant alleged that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) improperly withheld information related to a grant made to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) under sections 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that neither ACOA nor the OECD provided sufficient evidence to justify withholding the information under these exemptions. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ACOA to disclose the records in their entirety, an order which ACOA stated it would implement.

• Whether information concerning a grant to a third party was properly withheld under subsection 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether information related to the grant was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) (contractual or other negotiations of a third party).
• The burden of proof on the institution and/or third party to demonstrate that exemptions apply.
• The nature of confidentiality and reasonable expectation of non-disclosure for financial information.