Canadian privacy & access decisions

The Information Commissioner received a complaint alleging that the titles of certain briefing notes published on the Open Canada website were improperly withheld. The complaint did not arise from an access request made under Part 1 of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The Commissioner reviewed the complaint under section 30 of the ATIA, which outlines the types of complaints that can be investigated. It was determined that the complaint did not fall under paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (d.1) as it did not relate to an access request. Furthermore, it did not fall under paragraph 30(1)(e) or 30(1)(f) as it did not concern a matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under Part 1 of the ATIA. The Commissioner noted that subsection 91(1) of the ATIA specifically precludes her from exercising powers related to the proactive publication of information under Part 2 of the Act. Consequently, the complaint was found inadmissible, and the Commissioner declined to investigate due to a lack of authority.

• Whether the complaint fell within the scope of section 30(1)(a) to (d.1) of the ATIA (complaints related to access requests)
• Whether the complaint fell within the scope of section 30(1)(e) or (f) of the ATIA (other matters relating to requesting or obtaining access under Part 1)
• Whether the Commissioner has authority to investigate complaints related to proactive publication under Part 2 of the ATIA (s.91(1))

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received a complaint alleging that a federal institution failed to respond within an extended timeframe for an access request and engaged in inappropriate communication. The OIC accepted the complaint regarding the delay but deemed the complaint about inappropriate communication inadmissible. The institution had, on May 2, 2022, suggested the requester abandon their request, which the requester declined on May 22, 2022. The complainant argued the 60-day period for filing a complaint about the communication started when the extended response timeframe expired on August 25, 2022. However, the OIC determined that the alleged inappropriate conduct occurred on May 2, 2022, when the institution first communicated its proposal regarding the request. Since the complaint about communication was filed after the mandatory 60-day limit from May 2, 2022, the Commissioner found it inadmissible.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended timeframe for an access request
• Whether the complaint regarding the institution's alleged inappropriate communication was submitted within the 60-day time limit under s.31 ATIA
• When the complainant became aware of the grounds for complaint regarding alleged inappropriate communication

The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) regarding an access request. The institution had responded to the access request by email, but the complainant inadvertently deleted the email before reviewing its contents. The complainant argued that the 60-day time limit for filing a complaint under section 31 of the Access to Information Act (ATIA) should begin from the date they became aware of the grounds for complaint, which was when they recovered and reviewed the deleted email. The OIC determined that the complaint was inadmissible because it was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe. The Commissioner clarified that the 60-day period begins the day after the requester receives the institution's response, not when they become aware of the grounds for complaint due to their own actions. The OIC concluded that the ATIA does not grant the Commissioner the power to extend this statutory time limit.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day time limit prescribed by section 31 of the ATIA
• Interpretation of 'in any other case' in section 31 of the ATIA regarding the start of the complaint period
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the power to extend the 60-day time limit for filing a complaint

The Information Commissioner ceased investigation into complaint 5819-02602. The complainant had indicated a desire to pursue the matter solely as a point of principle, despite the underlying issue for which the information was sought having already been settled. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's apparent lack of interest in actually obtaining the records, coupled with the request to continue the investigation based purely on principle, rendered the complaint trivial. Consequently, the investigation was ceased under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act, which permits the Commissioner to discontinue an investigation if the complaint is deemed trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

• Whether the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) regarding an access request. The institution provided documentation showing that the complaint was submitted more than seven weeks after the 60-day statutory deadline set out in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The complainant acknowledged the delay, explaining that the institution's response to their request had been "misplaced" after receipt, and asked the Commissioner to exercise "residual discretion" to extend the deadline. The Commissioner considered the complainant's representations and the documentary evidence. Citing Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the Commissioner concluded that she does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes for filing complaints. Therefore, the complaint was rejected as it did not meet the requirements of section 31.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe under section 31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received a complaint alleging that a federal institution failed to provide records in French in response to an access request. During the OIC's investigation, the institution translated the requested documents into French and provided them to the complainant. As the complainant subsequently received the documents in their preferred official language, the OIC determined that continuing the investigation was unnecessary. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ceased the investigation under paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act, which permits ceasing an investigation when it is no longer required due to the circumstances.

• Whether the institution failed to provide records in French
• Whether continuing the investigation was unnecessary under paragraph 30(4)(b) of the ATIA

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ceased an investigation into a complaint alleging that a federal institution failed to conduct a reasonable search for records created in the 1990s. The OIC invoked paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act, which permits ceasing an investigation if it is unnecessary, such as when the matter has already been investigated. The OIC had previously investigated and issued a final report on an identical complaint regarding the same institution and type of records. The complainant was given an opportunity to provide representations on why the investigation should continue but did not respond. As no new evidence was presented to differentiate this complaint from the prior one, the OIC concluded that continuing the investigation was unnecessary.

• Whether the investigation was unnecessary under paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act because the matter had already been the subject of an investigation or final report

The complainant alleged that a federal institution failed to respond to an access request within the statutory 30-day period or an extended period, resulting in a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The complainant submitted their complaint on January 21, 2025, arguing that the deemed refusal was 'ongoing' and therefore the 60-day time limit for complaints under section 31 should not apply from the initial awareness date. The OIC requested clarification on when the complainant first became aware of the institution's failure to respond, but the complainant maintained their 'ongoing refusal' position. The OIC determined that the complaint was inadmissible because it was not submitted within the mandatory 60-day time limit from when the complainant first became aware of the grounds for complaint. The Commissioner rejected the argument that an 'ongoing' deemed refusal continuously restarts the complaint period, citing Federal Court precedent and emphasizing that the Act does not grant the Commissioner power to extend this time limit.

• Whether the complaint was submitted within the 60-day time limit prescribed by section 31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether an 'ongoing' deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act continuously restarts the 60-day complaint period under section 31
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the power to extend the 60-day time limit for submitting complaints

The Information Commissioner ceased investigation into seventeen complaints, finding them vexatious. The complaints alleged unreasonable time extensions taken by an institution. However, the Commissioner found that these seventeen requests sought the same information as a previous request from the same complainant, which had already been the subject of an OIC investigation where the time extension was deemed reasonable. The complainant had not pursued a Federal Court review of the previous finding. Evidence showed the institution was providing regular interim responses as committed, contrary to the complainant's assertion. The Commissioner concluded that the new complaints were an attempt to circumvent the OIC's previous findings and avoid the proper recourse mechanism of Federal Court review. Therefore, the Commissioner ceased investigation under paragraphs 30(4)(a) and (b) of the Access to Information Act.

• Whether the complaints were vexatious under s.30(4)(a) ATIA
• Whether further investigation was unnecessary under s.30(4)(b) ATIA
• Whether the new requests were substantively duplicative of a previously investigated complaint
• Whether the complainant was attempting to circumvent previous OIC findings

The complainant submitted an access to information request to a federal institution and received a response in October 2021. The institution's response included a notice informing the complainant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days. The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) in January 2022, which was more than sixty days after receiving the institution's response. The OIC determined that the complaint was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe specified in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner concluded that the OIC does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe as per s.31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint