Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, agreements between manufacturers and the Government of Canada, and the use of foreign workers in these facilities. ISED had extended the response deadline by 300 days, but failed to meet it, primarily due to a lack of responsiveness from its Industry Sector. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and noted that the complainant had been waiting almost 18 months for a response. The Commissioner ordered ISED to provide a complete response within 60 business days of the final report. ISED indicated its intention to comply with the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended time limits under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, related to submissions for using Anafranil / Altius Clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope of the complaint to specific pages and no longer pursued the personal information exemption. Both Health Canada and the third party, AA Pharma Inc., declined to provide detailed representations to support the exemptions, stating that due to the passage of time, the exemptions no longer applied. The Information Commissioner found that the institution and third party failed to demonstrate that the exemptions were still applicable. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the information. Health Canada notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(a) ATIA (third-party trade secrets)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to commercial fishing agreements with Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) from 2000 to 2020, citing exemptions under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that DFO correctly applied subsection 19(1) to personal information that remained after some signatures were voluntarily disclosed. However, for much of the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), DFO and EFN failed to demonstrate that it was objectively confidential, supplied by a third party, or consistently treated as confidential, leading to its rejection for many portions. The Commissioner upheld paragraph 20(1)(b) for specific financial details like EFN contribution amounts, salary information, activity costs, and supplier quotes. Furthermore, the Commissioner rejected the application of paragraph 20(1)(c), concluding that the alleged financial harm or competitive injury was speculative and lacked concrete evidence. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded. DFO was ordered to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), and the institution agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information met the definition of "personal information" under s.19(1) ATIA.
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA regarding personal information.
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was not otherwise available from public sources (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the information originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation of confidence (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the relationship between the government and third party would be fostered for public benefit by keeping the information confidential (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm a third party's competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether the alleged harm under s.20(1)(c) ATIA was well beyond a mere possibility or speculative.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took an unreasonable extension of time under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to a request for documents related to parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN. The OIC investigated two allegations: that the extension was unreasonable (s.30(1)(c)) and that it did not meet the requirements of section 9 (s.30(1)(a)). PSPC had extended the response time by 600 days under paragraph 9(1)(a) for volume of records and 150 days under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations. The OIC found that the extension under 9(1)(a) was reasonable due to the large volume of records and potential interference with operations. However, the OIC determined that the 150-day extension under 9(1)(b) was not reasonable because PSPC relied primarily on service standards rather than a genuine assessment of the actual time required for consultations. Consequently, the OIC concluded that PSPC was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) and ordered PSPC to provide a complete response by June 1, 2026, also recommending interim releases for non-consultation documents. PSPC agreed to implement the order and recommendation.

• Whether the extension of time taken under subsection 9(1) was unreasonable (s.30(1)(c))
• Whether the extension of time taken met the requirements of section 9 (s.30(1)(a))
• Whether the request was for 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 under paragraph 9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period
• Whether consultations were necessary under paragraph 9(1)(b)
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under paragraph 9(1)(b)
• Whether the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(b) was for a reasonable period
• Whether PSPC was deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3)

An anonymous applicant complained that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) improperly withheld a 2000 land claim settlement agreement with the Squamish Nation. CIRNAC initially claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act, later adding paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d) during the investigation. The Information Commissioner found that CIRNAC failed to demonstrate how any of the claimed exemptions applied to the records. Specifically, the institution did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm for the harms-based exemptions, nor did it meet all criteria for the class-based exemption. The Commissioner also rejected the argument that common law settlement privilege could be a stand-alone basis for refusal under the Act. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded, and CIRNAC was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety. However, CIRNAC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.18(b) (competitive position or negotiations of a government institution)
• Whether the circumstances for exercising discretion under s.18(b) existed
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the circumstances for exercising discretion under s.20(1)(b) existed
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(c) (material financial impact on a third party or harm to its competitive position)
• Whether the circumstances for exercising discretion under s.20(1)(c) existed
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(d) (interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party)
• Whether the circumstances for exercising discretion under s.20(1)(d) existed
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.23 (solicitor-client or litigation privilege)
• Whether the circumstances for exercising discretion under s.23 existed
• Whether common law settlement privilege can be invoked as a stand-alone basis for refusing disclosure under the Access to Information Act
• Whether the public interest in access outweighed the public interest in preserving settlement privilege
• Whether CIRNAC fulfilled its severance obligations under s.25 of the Act

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to an application for a Fisheries Act authorization for a berth expansion project. DFO initially withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information), 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information), and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act. A third party also argued for the application of paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with negotiations). The Information Commissioner found that DFO failed to demonstrate that most of the withheld information met the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d), citing issues with confidentiality, public availability, and lack of demonstrated harm. However, the Commissioner upheld the application of subsection 19(1) for personal information. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and DFO was ordered to disclose all information except that properly withheld under subsection 19(1). DFO notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether DFO properly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the information met the definition of "personal information" under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether any circumstances under s.19(2) ATIA existed to require discretion to disclose
• Whether DFO properly withheld information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was publicly available (as a criterion for confidentiality under s.20(1)(b) ATIA)
• Whether the information was communicated with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the relationship between DFO and the third party would be fostered for public benefit by maintaining confidentiality under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether DFO properly withheld information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to the third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to injure the competitive position of the third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether DFO properly withheld information under s.20(1)(d) ATIA (as argued by third party)
• Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with those negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information from contracts related to an aggregate extraction operation on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA), claiming exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that while some financial information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) due to potential harm to competitive position, and certain commercial/technical information met some requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), the institution and third parties failed to demonstrate that the entirety of the contract was confidential or that its disclosure would interfere with negotiations. Specifically, much of the information was found to be publicly available, negating the confidentiality claim for those portions. The Commissioner concluded that the institution had improperly withheld significant parts of the contract. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to disclose the content of the contract, with specific redactions for information that met the exemption criteria.

• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was reasonably expected
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was confidential
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party
• Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party was reasonably expected

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b.1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning user agreements for the national public alerting system. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, no longer requiring investigation into subsection 19(1) or information on pages 1-12. The OIC found that neither Public Safety nor the third party, Pelmorex Communications, could demonstrate that the agreements were "supplied" by the third party, a key requirement for exemptions 20(1)(b.1) and 20(1)(b). Public Safety also invoked subsection 16(2) for a DocuSign ID, but the Commissioner found no reasonable expectation of harm. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Public Safety to disclose the records in their entirety, excluding information previously withheld under subsection 19(1). Public Safety agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information in negotiated agreements was "supplied" by a third party for the purpose of s.20(1)(b.1) ATIA
• Whether information in negotiated agreements was "supplied" by a third party for the purpose of s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of a DocuSign envelope identification number could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under s.16(2) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought "Activity Progress Reports" related to the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or "missing children" programs from April 1, 2021. CIRNAC attributed the delay to "resource limitations" and stated that the review of records had not yet begun, despite identifying 576 relevant pages. The Information Commissioner found CIRNAC's reason for delay unacceptable, emphasizing that the Act does not permit delays due to staffing issues or competing priorities. The Commissioner concluded that CIRNAC contravened its obligations and ordered the institution to provide a complete response within 36 business days. CIRNAC subsequently agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended time limits under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether 'resource limitations' constitute a valid reason for delay in responding to an access request

The complainant requested records concerning noise and vibration studies for the Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Project. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) withheld information under several exemptions and provided some documents in an illegible format. The Commissioner found that the VFPA improperly withheld information under sections 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(d) of the Act, and failed its duty to assist by providing illegible records. While some information was properly withheld under sections 13(1), 18(b), 18(d), 19(1), and 21(1)(a), the institution could not justify the application of other exemptions or the illegibility of records. Specifically, section 20(1)(b) and (d) claims were rejected due to a lack of objective confidentiality and speculative harm. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose specific information and provide legible copies of records. The VFPA notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether s.13(1) confidential information from government bodies applied to pages 396-397 of Part 2.
• Whether s.13(1) confidential information from government bodies applied to page 398 of Part 2 (VFPA's own email signature/COVID message).
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.13(2) for information meeting s.13(1).
• Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to specific estimated costs, specifics of the draft partnership agreement, and details of selected/preferred options.
• Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to peripheral details (e.g., where funding was requested from).
• Whether s.18(b) competitive position or negotiations applied to information showing no clear preference or options not seriously considered.
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.18(b) for information meeting the exemption.
• Whether s.18(d) government financial interests or undue benefit applied to specific costing information.
• Whether s.18(d) government financial interests or undue benefit applied to potential measures or number of mitigation options.
• Whether s.19(1) personal information applied to names of third-party employees.
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2) for information meeting s.19(1).
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical.
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was objectively confidential (not publicly available, reasonable expectation of confidence, fostered public benefit).
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was supplied by a third party (specifically, negotiated terms).
• Whether s.20(1)(b) information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party.
• Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party applied to information withheld by CP.
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to information on pages 428-429 of Part 2.
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to objective, factual, or statistical information.
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to data relating to the number of receivers exceeding criteria.
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(a) for information meeting the exemption.
• Whether s.21(1)(d) plans related to personnel management or administration applied to plans for future growth.
• Whether s.21(1)(d) was contravened by applying it to a consultant's slide deck (s.21(2)(b)).
• Whether the VFPA met its obligations under s.4(2.1) to make every reasonable effort to assist the complainant by providing legible copies.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an unreasonable time extension under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act and improperly processed two requests as one. The request sought an updated Consultation Agreement between Canada and the MNA and related documents. The Information Commissioner found that CIRNAC's 180-day extension for volume and 90-day extension for consultations were unreasonable, particularly noting that a 90-day consultation period for 12 pages with the Department of Justice was not justified. Consequently, CIRNAC was deemed to have refused access. However, the Commissioner found it reasonable for CIRNAC to treat the request as a single one, given the way it was submitted. The complaint was deemed well-founded, and CIRNAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Whether the 180-day extension under s.9(1)(a) ATIA for volume was reasonable
• Whether the 90-day extension under s.9(1)(b) ATIA for consultations was reasonable
• Whether the 30-day extension under s.9(1)(c) ATIA was reasonable
• Whether CIRNAC improperly processed two requests as one
• Whether CIRNAC was deemed to have refused access under s.10(3) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning complaints submitted to ESDC's Labour Program. The OIC's investigation found that ESDC's initial search was not reasonable because it overlooked two key components of the access request. Consequently, ESDC conducted an additional search, which identified further responsive records. The OIC concluded that while the initial search was inadequate, the subsequent search was reasonable. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the OIC ordered ESDC to process the newly identified records and issue a new response to the complainant within 36 business days. ESDC agreed to implement these orders.

• Whether Employment and Social Development Canada conducted a reasonable search for records related to complaints submitted to its Labour Program

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for reports and minutes from the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) concerning global warming or climate change from 1988-1989. PCO initially claimed exemptions under subsections 13(1), 14, 15(1), 19(1), and 24(1). During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the 19(1) allegation, and PCO conceded that section 14 was improperly applied, releasing the information. PCO also subsequently released some information initially withheld under 13(1) and 15(1). The Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements for exemption under subsections 13(1), 15(1), or 24(1), particularly regarding the confidentiality of foreign government information, the potential harm from disclosing names of CSIS and CSE employees, and the impact of revealing dissemination markings or general assessments of allies. The Commissioner concluded that PCO did not establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm for the claimed exemptions. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a foreign government under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of CSIS employee names could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of CSE employee names could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of dissemination markings could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of limited information regarding foreign governments could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether the identity of CSIS employees was restricted from disclosure by s.18(1) of the CSIS Act, thereby falling under s.24(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to allegations concerning the ethics of an individual. The request sought all documents from April 1, 2024, to the present, respecting these allegations. Initially, PCO tasked several Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), all of which provided nil responses, leading PCO to inform the complainant that no records were found. However, the Information Commissioner's investigation revealed that not all relevant OPIs were tasked. Upon further inquiry by the OIC, PCO additionally tasked its Communications and Consultations secretariat, which located 142 pages of responsive records. The Commissioner found that PCO had not conducted a reasonable search initially because not all responsible OPIs were tasked. The complaint was deemed well-founded, and PCO was ordered to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a supplementary response within 36 business days.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the management of the government's parliamentary agenda. Initially, PCO's Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) provided nil responses, leading PCO to inform the complainant that no relevant records were found. However, the complainant provided detailed reasons why records should exist, prompting the OIC to request further representations from PCO. During the OIC's investigation, PCO conducted additional searches, which located 26 pages of relevant records that were not found in the initial search because they were stored in a PCO-ATIP library rather than directly by the OPI. The Commissioner found that PCO had not conducted a reasonable search initially. Consequently, the complaint was deemed well-founded, and PCO was ordered to process and release the newly found records.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records under s.30(1)(a) ATIA