Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada's 510-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request concerned records on new testing and quarantine measures for non-essential international air travel. Transport Canada argued the extension was needed due to the large volume of records, the complexity of searches, necessary consultations with other government bodies, and third-party representations. The Commissioner found that the institution adequately demonstrated the necessity and reasonableness of the time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), and 9(1)(c) of the Act.

• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) due to volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) due to consultations
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(c) due to third-party consultations
• Proper notification of time extension

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to conduct a complete search for the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan. DND tasked the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with retrieving the records, but the RCN reported them as lost. Despite a "Summary Investigation" by DND, the circumstances of the loss could not be determined. Ultimately, the Information Commissioner found that DND conducted reasonable searches and could not conclude that responsive records could reasonably be found, rendering the complaint not well founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by National Defence
• Determination of the loss of records
• Impact of records management deficiencies 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 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 Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) wrongly refused to process an access request for emails containing specific keywords, claiming they were not under its control. The emails were stored on ESDC servers and sent using a government account. However, the OIC found that the emails were entirely personal, had no institutional purpose, and were not integrated with ESDC's records. Therefore, the OIC concluded the emails were not under ESDC's control and not subject to the Access to Information Act, resulting in the complaint being not well founded.

• Whether the requested emails were under the control of Employment and Social Development Canada for the purposes of the Access to Information Act.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld the names of employees within the Prime Minister's Office. The information was requested in relation to records concerning an announcement about audits of registered charities for political activities. The OIC found that the withheld names constituted personal information and met the requirements for exemption under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC was also satisfied that none of the exceptions allowing for disclosure under subsection 19(2) applied. Therefore, the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the names of Prime Minister's Office employees constitute personal information under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information fell under exceptions to the definition of personal information.
• Whether the institution properly exercised its discretion to disclose the information under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for information related to the Competition Bureau's bread price-fixing investigation. The request involved over 75 million pages of records. ISED calculated the extension by considering the volume of records, the time needed for the program area to gather records, and the time needed by the Access to Information and Privacy Office to analyze exemptions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint not well founded, agreeing that the extension was reasonable and that ISED followed the proper procedures.

• Whether the extension of time taken by the institution was reasonable under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the request involved a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records.
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations.
• Whether the duration of the extension was reasonable given the circumstances.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access to information request, specifically concerning a time extension for consultations. CSIS argued that the extension was necessary due to the sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review, and limited workplace access, all exacerbated by the pandemic. The OIC found that CSIS made a reasonable effort to assess the extension period and concluded that the time taken was justified given the circumstances.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultations under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Impact of the pandemic on the ability of institutions to complete consultations within the standard timeframes.
• Whether CSIS adequately demonstrated the necessity and duration of the time extension.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the withheld information was obtained by the RCMP during a lawful investigation related to the suppression of crime and was created less than 20 years before the request. The OIC was also satisfied that the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding to withhold the information.

• Whether the information was obtained or prepared by an investigative body in the course of a lawful investigation pertaining to the detection, prevention or suppression of crime.
• Whether the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request.
• Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information concerning a specific individual's business ownership under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the requested information was about an identifiable taxpayer (not the complainant) and was obtained by the CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act. As section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of such information, the OIC concluded the CRA properly withheld the records.

• Whether the information requested was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA (disclosure restricted by another law).
• Whether the information constituted taxpayer information as defined by the Income Tax Act.
• Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricted the disclosure of the requested information.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning producers and users of medical cannabis. Responsive records were drawn from one database, but Health Canada argued retrieving additional records from a second database would be unreasonable due to the manual labour involved. The Information Commissioner agreed that the search was reasonable given the effort required.

• Reasonableness of search

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly relied on section 26 of the Access to Information Act to refuse access to annual statistics regarding the processing of access to information and privacy requests. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada met the criteria for applying section 26 and had properly considered all relevant factors in its decision.

• Applicability of section 26 of the ATIA (Refusal of access if information to be published)
• Proper exercise of discretion by the institution

A complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to identify all records responsive to an Access to Information Act request and should have provided an index of these records. The Information Commissioner of Canada found that Health Canada conducted a reasonable search and did not improperly withhold records. The Commissioner also determined that Health Canada was not obligated to create an index for this request, as it would have been unreasonable.

• Duty to assist
• Reasonableness of search
• Obligation to create an index of records

This investigation examined a complaint regarding the alleged leak of personal information about a Supreme Court of Canada candidate. The complainant alleged that documents revealed by an anonymous source demonstrated a disagreement between the Prime Minister’s Office and the former Attorney General concerning the candidate's nomination. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) but found no evidence that these institutions were responsible for the unauthorized disclosure. The OPC's investigation was constrained by jurisdictional limitations, as the Privacy Act does not apply to Ministers' offices or the Prime Minister's Office.

• Whether the PCO or DOJ contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by improperly disclosing personal information.
• Whether the PCO or DOJ had access to the personal information that was leaked to the media.
• The jurisdictional limitations of the Privacy Act concerning Ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office.
• The need for legislative reform to extend the Privacy Act's coverage.

A former employee of TD Canada Trust (TD) complained that TD had outsourced fraud claims processing to a third-party provider in India without customer consent or an opt-out option. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated and found that TD was not required to obtain additional consent as the personal information was used for the original purpose of fraud claims management. The OPC also found TD was sufficiently open about its outsourcing practices and remained accountable by ensuring comparable protection through contractual and monitoring measures.

• Requirement for consent to transfer personal information to a third-party processor for the same purpose
• Sufficiency of openness regarding outsourcing of personal information to foreign jurisdictions
• Accountability for personal information transferred to a third-party processor and ensuring comparable protection