Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) claimed an unreasonable 29,200-day time extension to process an access request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records on Project Anecdote. LAC identified 780,000 pages of paper and microfilm records, along with other media, as responsive. The Commissioner found that while the request involved a large volume of records and responding within 30 days would interfere with operations, LAC failed to demonstrate that the 29,200-day extension was reasonable. LAC did not adequately explain the link between its justifications and the extension's length, nor did it show that a shorter processing time would unreasonably interfere with operations. The Commissioner concluded that LAC's time extension was invalid, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. Despite the OIC's efforts over three years to assist LAC in establishing a reasonable timeframe, LAC did not provide a concrete plan or commitment to respond, even indicating it was not actively processing the request. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the request was for a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances, under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether Library and Archives Canada was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information under several sections of the Access to Information Act related to a Request for Proposals (RFP). The OIC found that ECCC failed to properly exercise its discretion under subsection 19(2) regarding publicly available personal information and did not seek consent from individuals where appropriate. While ECCC's application of paragraph 21(1)(a) for evaluators' comments was upheld due to the specialized field and small number of competitors, the Commissioner found that certain financial and commercial information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) did not meet the exemption criteria, particularly where information was publicly available or absolute confidentiality was unreasonable for public funds. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC agreed to implement the Commissioner's recommendations to disclose the identified information.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
• Whether ECCC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2) for publicly available personal information
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations exemption was properly applied to evaluators' comments
• Whether ECCC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(a)
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to evaluators' comments
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to the lowest bid amount and per diem rate
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to the Response to the RFP
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied to the lowest bid amount and per diem rate
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied to the Response to the RFP
• Whether the information met the confidentiality criteria under s.20(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly refused to process an access request, claiming the records were outside its control. The request sought records related to a named employee, including dates of leave, job grade, letters of offer, and salary history. ESDC argued that because the records contained personal information of an individual other than the complainant, they were not under its control. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that while the records were indeed personal information of a third party, they were nonetheless under ESDC's control as they related to institutional operations, employment purposes, and statutory requirements. Consequently, ESDC agreed to process the request and has since issued a response to the complainant. The OIC concluded that the complaint was well founded.

• Whether records containing personal information of a third party are "under the control" of the institution
• Whether the institution properly tasked Offices of Primary Interest to search for records
• Whether the records relate to institutional operations
• Whether the records are intended for employment-related purposes
• Whether the records fulfill a statutory requirement imposed on the institution

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning an inmate's carceral file. The OIC investigation found that CSC had not retrieved or processed the records before applying the exemption, thus failing to properly exercise its jurisdiction. CSC argued that carceral files are inherently personal information and that retrieving them posed a privacy threat. The Commissioner determined that without reviewing the records, CSC could not legitimately claim the information met the criteria for personal information under s.19(1) or properly consider the discretionary release provisions of s.19(2). CSC subsequently reversed its position and agreed to retrieve and process the records. The complaint was found to be well founded, and CSC committed to implementing the Commissioner's recommendations.

• Whether Correctional Service Canada properly applied s.19(1) ATIA without retrieving or processing the records
• Whether the information met the criteria for personal information under s.19(1) ATIA without a review of the records
• Whether Correctional Service Canada properly exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA without reviewing the records
• Whether Correctional Service Canada met its obligations under s.25 ATIA regarding severance

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to mediation services provided by the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (CICR) under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. Transport Canada initially applied the exemption to various details on CICR's invoices. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1) and Transport Canada conceded that several categories of information, such as the description of services and total amount, should not have been withheld. However, Transport Canada maintained that the hourly rate and number of hours billed were properly exempt. The Information Commissioner agreed that the hourly rate and number of hours billed met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) as confidential commercial information consistently treated as such. Conversely, the Commissioner found that the description of services, dates of services, subtotal of charges, taxes, total amount, and amount paid did not meet all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), either because they were not financial/commercial/scientific/technical, not objectively confidential, or not supplied by the third party. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to disclose the remaining redacted information.

• Whether the description of services billed is financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the dates of services are financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the subtotal of charges is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the amount of taxes applied is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the "total amount" is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the "amount paid" was supplied by the third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the hourly rate of the third party is confidential financial/commercial information consistently treated as such under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the number of hours billed is confidential financial/commercial information consistently treated as such under s.20(1)(b) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request for information about implantable medical devices within the statutory time limits. Health Canada initially claimed a 90-day time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the ATIA, but failed to respond by the extended due date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3). The institution had consulted nine third parties, one of whom filed a judicial review application under section 44, which Health Canada argued prevented the release of any records. During the OIC's investigation, the third party withdrew its application. Health Canada then indicated that further consultations were needed due to intertwined information and the passage of time. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well founded and recommended that Health Canada provide a final response to the complainant by a specified date. The Minister of Health agreed to implement this recommendation.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether Health Canada's time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) was valid
• Whether Health Canada was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Whether a third-party judicial review application under section 44 justified the delay in processing the entire request

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. LAC took a 425-day extension but did not meet the extended deadline, leading to a deemed refusal. The investigation revealed that the delay was partly due to a lengthy consultation with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and LAC's lack of infrastructure to process Top Secret classified records. Despite CSIS not agreeing to downgrade the classification, the Information Commissioner found that the lack of appropriate infrastructure was not a valid justification for LAC's failure to meet its obligations. The Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Canadian Heritage find an interim solution for the request and implement a permanent solution for handling classified records. The Minister confirmed that LAC responded to the request by redacting records by hand and is working towards digital processing capability. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Library and Archives Canada responded to the access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether Library and Archives Canada was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
• Whether the lack of infrastructure to process Top Secret records is a valid justification for delay

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for COVID-19-related contracts within the statutory time limit. PSPC received the request on April 6, 2020, with a response due by May 6, 2020. PSPC stated that the delay was partly due to the request being placed on hold because of COVID-19 measures. However, the Information Commissioner has previously ruled that the pandemic does not justify suspending access request processing. The investigation found that PSPC did not respond by the deadline and did not claim an extension. PSPC finally responded on April 1, 2021, nearly a year after the initial deadline. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC failed to meet its obligations under the Access to Information Act, resulting in a deemed refusal.

• Whether Public Services and Procurement Canada responded to the access request within the time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the COVID-19 pandemic justified suspending the processing of an access request

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) processing of access requests for immigration application files due to a dramatic increase in requests and complaints. The investigation found that IRCC's practice of automatically extending response times for frequent requesters under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act was improper. This practice disregarded Federal Court of Appeal guidance and the Act's requirement to not consider a requester's identity. The Commissioner issued five recommendations to IRCC, including ceasing the improper extension practice, developing a work plan to improve ATIP office performance, publishing results, improving the availability of client immigration information, and securing adequate short-term resources. IRCC agreed to all recommendations and submitted a work plan. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether IRCC's practice of extending time limits under paragraph 9(1)(a) for frequent requesters was compliant with the ATIA
• Whether IRCC's extension practice disregarded Federal Court of Appeal guidance on s.9(1)(a)
• Whether IRCC's extension practice violated subsection 4(2.1) by considering requester identity
• Whether IRCC had sufficient resources and effective processes to manage the volume of access requests
• Whether IRCC provided adequate alternative means for clients to obtain immigration application information

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) improperly withheld information under section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought legal fees related to a specific litigation file. Justice claimed solicitor-client privilege over disbursements and details of expenses in a cost-recovery report, citing a presumption of privilege for lawyers' bills of account. The Information Commissioner acknowledged this presumption but found it rebutted in this case. The Commissioner determined there was no reasonable possibility that an inquirer could use the information to deduce privileged communications. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended that Justice disclose all information initially withheld under section 23. Justice agreed to implement the recommendation, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the information consists of communication between a lawyer or notary and his or her client
• Whether the communication relates directly to the seeking or giving of legal advice
• Whether the parties intend the communication and advice to remain confidential
• Whether the information was prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation
• Whether the litigation is either in progress or is reasonably expected to occur
• Whether the presumption of privilege for lawyers' bills of account was rebutted
• Whether there was a reasonable possibility that an assiduous inquirer could use the information to deduce or otherwise acquire communications protected by privilege

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) improperly refused to process an access request for records related to keywords such as 'counter-radicalization' and 'cyber radicalization', including associated metadata. Public Safety argued that portions of the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act due to the expansive volume of records and the complexity of identifying relevant information. The Commissioner agreed that some parts of the request were too broad, but found that other parts (Paragraph 1 and Schedule A) were sufficiently detailed and should have been processed. The Commissioner also determined that Public Safety failed to meet its legislated obligations by not claiming an extension of time and by refusing to process any part of the request. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Public Safety committed to processing the valid portions of the request at a rate of 5,000 pages per year.

• Whether the request provided sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee to identify records with reasonable effort (s.6 ATIA)
• Whether Public Safety was justified in refusing to process the entire request if only parts of it met s.6 ATIA requirements
• Whether Public Safety complied with its obligation to claim an extension of time under s.9(1) ATIA
• Whether Public Safety made every reasonable effort to assist the requester (s.4(2.1) ATIA)
• Whether Public Safety was required to consult on the term 'metadata' and provide records in the requested format

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning a follow-up investigation related to a Code of Conduct decision against the complainant. During the investigation, the RCMP conceded that some of the withheld information was not personal information and issued a supplementary release. However, the RCMP maintained the application of subsection 19(1) on the remaining information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that the remaining withheld information was indeed personal information about another individual, meeting the requirements of the exemption. The OIC also concluded that none of the circumstances under subsection 19(2) that would warrant disclosure existed. Therefore, the complaint was found to be well founded because the RCMP initially withheld information that was not personal information, but the OIC upheld the exemption for the remaining records.

• Whether the information initially withheld by the RCMP constituted personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the remaining withheld information was personal information about another individual under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances for disclosure under s.19(2) ATIA existed

The OPC initiated an investigation into CashHere, a short-term lender, after being alerted by the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services that it was collecting online banking credentials (passwords, usernames, security questions/answers) from loan applicants. The OPC found that while CashHere had a legitimate need to validate identity and income, collecting banking credentials was not an appropriate purpose under PIPEDA s. 5(3) due to less privacy-invasive alternatives and disproportionate privacy risks. The investigation also noted that a related entity, MoneyHome, appeared to be continuing the same practices. CashHere ceased responding to the OPC, and the matter was found to be well-founded and unresolved.

• Whether CashHere's collection of online banking login credentials was for a purpose that a reasonable person would consider appropriate under s. 5(3) of PIPEDA
• Whether the collection of banking credentials was effective in meeting CashHere's legitimate need
• Whether there were less privacy-invasive means of achieving the same ends
• Whether the loss of privacy was proportional to the benefits for CashHere

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine complaints regarding Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) failure to respond to nine access requests within the statutory deadlines or taking unreasonable time extensions. GAC cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor impacting its ability to process these requests. Despite the challenges, GAC committed to providing a final response for all nine files by October 15, 2021. The Commissioner found all nine complaints to be well founded, indicating that GAC improperly delayed access to the requested information. This decision highlights the institution's obligation to meet timelines under the Access to Information Act, even when facing operational difficulties.

• Whether Global Affairs Canada failed to respond to access requests within the statutory deadlines
• Whether Global Affairs Canada took unreasonable time extensions for access requests

A joint investigation by Canadian privacy commissioners examined Clearview AI's facial recognition tool, which scraped billions of images from public websites to create a database for law enforcement and other users. Clearview argued that Canadian privacy laws did not apply due to a lack of jurisdiction and that the information was "publicly available," thus exempt from consent requirements. The Offices asserted jurisdiction, finding a real and substantial connection to Canada through Clearview's marketing and use by Canadian entities. They determined Clearview failed to obtain requisite consent, as the "publicly available" exception did not apply to sensitive biometric data scraped from social media for unrelated purposes. Furthermore, Clearview's mass collection and use of sensitive facial biometric information for commercial purposes were deemed inappropriate. In Quebec, Clearview also failed to report its biometric database and obtain express consent as required by law. The matter was found to be well-founded, with recommendations for Clearview to cease operations in Canada and delete Canadian data, which Clearview did not commit to implementing.

• Whether the Canadian privacy commissioners had jurisdiction over Clearview AI's activities.
• Whether Clearview AI obtained requisite consent for its collection, use, and disclosure of personal information under PIPEDA, PIPA AB, PIPA BC, and Quebec's Private Sector Act.
• Whether the "publicly available" information exception applied to Clearview AI's collection of images from public websites.
• Whether Clearview AI's collection, use, and disclosure of personal information was for an appropriate purpose under PIPEDA, PIPA AB, PIPA BC, and Quebec's Private Sector Act.
• Whether Clearview AI satisfied its biometric obligations in Quebec, specifically regarding reporting the creation of a biometric database and obtaining express consent under the LCCJTI.
• Whether Clearview AI's activities were protected by freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.