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