Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

An institution applied for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information. The request sought millions of pages of complex procurement records dating back to 2011. The Commissioner found the request was indeed an abuse of the right of access due to its excessive breadth and the significant burden it would place on the institution's resources, potentially hindering other requesters' access rights. The Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under section 6.1 of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester in clarifying or narrowing the request.
• Whether the estimated volume of records and complexity would overburden the institution's resources and impact other requesters' rights of access.
• The timeliness of the institution's application for approval to decline to act.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information from the "Rodal report" under several exemptions. Initially, LAC withheld information under sections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1)(c), and 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, LAC released most of the information, abandoning reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23. The OIC found that LAC could not initially demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of section 13(1). However, the OIC was satisfied that LAC properly withheld information under section 15(1) after reasonable exercise of discretion, and that the information met the requirements of section 13(1). The complaint was found to be well-founded because LAC improperly withheld information initially.

• Whether information was properly withheld under section 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies).
• Whether information was properly withheld under section 15(1) (international affairs, defence).
• Whether LAC properly exercised its discretion in withholding information.
• Whether LAC properly ceased reliance on sections 16(1)(c) and 23.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld records related to Tetra Tech under exemptions related to confidential third-party information and accounts of deliberations. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada failed to demonstrate that certain withheld information met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) because it was publicly available, not supplied by the third party, or not objectively confidential. However, the Commissioner found that Health Canada properly exercised its discretion in withholding information under paragraph 21(1)(b). The complaint was found to be well-founded regarding the paragraph 20(1)(b) exemptions.

• Confidentiality of third-party information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Accounts of consultations or deliberations (s. 21(1)(b) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of discretion in withholding information

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information related to the Ksi Lisims LNG project under exemptions concerning confidential third-party information, financial impact, and negotiations. The complainant narrowed the complaint to specific pages, and the IAAC eventually agreed to disclose some information or could not justify withholding it under certain exemptions. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded regarding information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73, ordering their disclosure. The Commissioner also ordered the IAAC to re-evaluate the decision to withhold information on page 67 under discretionary grounds.

• Confidential third-party information (s. 20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)
• Interference with third-party negotiations (s. 20(1)(d) ATIA)
• Reasonable exercise of discretion under s. 20(6) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request for records related to solicitation documents. The Information Commissioner found SSC's benchmark for processing records and its inclusion of anticipated delays from new ATIP Express software to be unreasonable. While acknowledging SSC's difficulties with the software, the Commissioner stressed that it should not impede access rights. The Commissioner found the extension to be unreasonable and ordered interim releases and a complete response by September 30, 2025.

• Reasonableness of extension of time to respond to access request under s. 9(1)(a) ATIA
• Impact of new ATIP software on processing times and access rights
• Application of s. 10(3) ATIA (deemed refusal)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee between November 1, 1957, and December 31, 1958. The Information Commissioner found that PCO's initial search was not reasonable. PCO conducted a new search during the investigation and found additional records. The Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a supplementary response by November 22, 2024. PCO has indicated it will implement the order.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completion of record retrieval and processing

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning the creation of the Intelligence Coordinator position between September 1984 and February 1985. The OIC found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable search, and PCO later located 187 additional responsive pages after further searches. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by December 10, 2024, which PCO agreed to implement.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of records provided
• Timeliness of response

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the review of the Canadian intelligence program between 1972 and 1975. The investigation found that PCO's initial search was not reasonable as not all relevant records were retrieved. Following the OIC's intervention, PCO conducted a subsequent search and identified 265 additional pages of responsive records. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a supplementary response by March 18, 2025.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of the records disclosed
• Timeliness of the institution's response

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information. The institution estimated the request would generate over 8,200 emails and take years to process, significantly impacting its operations and other requesters' rights. However, the Commissioner found the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence of the request constituting an abuse or demonstrating a link between the estimated workload and interference with other requesters' rights. Consequently, the application was denied.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access.
• Whether processing the request would overburden the institution and hinder other requesters' access rights.
• The credibility of the institution's estimates regarding workload and processing time.
• The institution's efforts to assist the requester in narrowing the scope of the request.

An institution applied for approval to decline acting on 597 access requests, arguing they were an abuse of the right to access information or vexatious. The Information Commissioner found that 550 requests met the criteria for abuse of process and granted approval for the institution to decline them. However, approval was denied for the remaining 47 requests, as the institution failed to demonstrate they were vexatious or an abuse of process.

• Abuse of the right of access
• Vexatious requests

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage (PCH) failed to conduct reasonable searches for records concerning registered lobbying communications from 2020-2021. The Information Commissioner found that while the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) initially tasked did their jobs, PCH did not involve all OPIs most likely to hold responsive records, specifically the Corporate Secretariat and the Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks. The Commissioner ordered PCH to task the relevant OPIs, conduct new searches, and provide access to any additional responsive records.

• Reasonableness of searches conducted by the institution.
• Proper identification and tasking of Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) to conduct searches.
• Whether all relevant records were identified and located.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request sought records related to committee studies of foreign election interference. The OIC found that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to the large volume of records and slow consultations. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 15, 2024, which PCO has committed to doing.

• Failure to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits.
• Deemed refusal of access due to non-response.
• Timeliness of consultations with other government departments.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access request for records concerning G&R Recyclage. ISC cited the large volume of records (over 17,000 pages) and the need for third-party consultations as reasons for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded, ordering ISC to issue third-party notices by October 1, 2024, and provide a complete response by December 12, 2024. ISC indicated it would comply with the order.

• Reasonableness of time extension for access to information request
• Volume of records and complexity of processing
• Necessity of third-party consultations

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access to information request for electronic records mentioning specific terms within the extended deadline. The investigation found that PCO did not meet its response obligation, deeming access refused. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 30, 2024, and to provide interim releases where possible. PCO has indicated it will implement the order.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Application of deeming provision for refusal of access
• Reasonableness of delays due to consultations and workload

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request was for records related to "ICSI Meetings 2001". The investigation found that PCO did not respond by the required date, and was therefore deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The delay was attributed to the ATIP office's failure to initiate consultations and process the request promptly. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response within 36 business days, and PCO has confirmed it will comply.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response under the Act
• Institution's responsibility for delays caused by consultations