Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office's (PCO) record-keeping practices for appointment processes did not comply with the Access to Information Act, specifically regarding interview notes. PCO stated that interview notes are considered transitory records, used to support deliberations, and are destroyed after appointments, with only the final advice letter to the Minister being the official record. The Commissioner found no evidence that records were destroyed with the intent to deny access, concluding the notes were transitory and their destruction did not violate the Act. The complaint was therefore not well founded.

• Whether PCO's practice of destroying interview notes constitutes non-compliance with the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the interview notes qualify as transitory records that can be disposed of.
• Whether the destruction of interview notes with intent to deny access constitutes an offence under section 67.1 of the Act.

The complainant alleged that the Department of National Defence (DND) improperly refused to issue a new response letter for a request concerning authority to generate Branch Standing Orders. DND stated that no records were found after a thorough search and included additional contextual information and hyperlinks to publicly available documents. The complainant argued this contextual information was speculative and breached DND's duty to assist. The Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) found that DND's response was complete and appropriate, and the supplementary information was provided in good faith to assist the requester without misrepresenting the search results or creating new records.

• Whether DND improperly refused to issue a new response letter.
• Whether DND's inclusion of contextual information breached its duty to assist requesters.
• Whether DND's response accurately and completely addressed the access request.

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld records from an inmate's file, citing several provisions of the Access to Information Act, primarily subsection 19(1) concerning personal information. The investigation focused on whether CSC met the requirements for withholding personal information and if it reasonably exercised its discretion in denying access. The Commissioner found that the records contained sensitive personal information and that CSC had met the requirements of subsection 19(1). Furthermore, CSC reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding not to disclose the information, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the invasion of privacy. Consequently, the complaint was found not to be well-founded.

• Whether the records constituted personal information under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether CSC met the requirements for withholding personal information under subsection 19(1).
• Whether CSC reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 19(2) regarding consent, public availability, and public interest in disclosure.
• Whether constitutional principles related to transparency and openness of judicial proceedings applied to the Parole Board of Canada.