Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the procurement of new handguns for the military within the 30-day statutory time limit. PSPC received the request on June 4, 2021, and the response was due by July 5, 2021, but no response was provided. PSPC cited a backlog, operational challenges, heavy workloads, staff turnover, and competing priorities as reasons for the delay, and indicated a plan to respond by February 28, 2025. The Commissioner found that PSPC's reasons, including staffing shortages and the need for inter-institutional consultations, did not absolve it of its statutory obligation to provide a timely response. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC failed to meet its obligations under the Act and was deemed to have refused access. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PSPC was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days, an order which PSPC indicated it would not fully implement.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the 30-day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's reasons for delay (backlog, operational challenges, staff turnover, competing priorities, inter-institutional consultations) absolved it of its statutory obligation to respond within the time limit

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, leading to a deemed refusal. The request sought records related to strategic communications campaigns concerning perceptions about drones. DND argued that the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act, claiming it lacked sufficient detail to identify records with reasonable effort. The Information Commissioner found that the request, which included a timeframe and subject, provided sufficient detail for an experienced employee to identify the records. The Commissioner also rejected DND's arguments that parts of the request were hypothetical or related to external academic papers. Consequently, DND was found to be in a state of deemed refusal. The complaint was well founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response to the access request.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Act
• Whether the access request met the requirements of section 6 of the Act to provide sufficient detail to identify records with reasonable effort
• Whether the request for 'strategic communications campaign(s)' was too broad
• Whether parts of the request were related to a hypothetical strategic communications plan
• Whether parts of the request were related to an academic paper not available within DND/CAF

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) failed to sufficiently identify redacted portions of records and the basis for withholding information in response to an access request for historical information about Warren Hart. CSIS used negative (white) redactions and cited exemptions only in the response letter, arguing that marking redactions on the records could cause harm. The Information Commissioner found that CSIS did not provide a cogent explanation for how clearly marked redactions and exemptions would reveal protected information. The Commissioner concluded that CSIS failed to meet its obligations regarding severance and the duty to assist. CSIS was recommended to provide a new response with clearly identified redactions and specific exemption provisions, and to cease using negative redactions and citing exemptions only in response letters. CSIS agreed to implement these recommendations.

• Whether CSIS sufficiently identified redacted portions of records
• Whether CSIS sufficiently identified the basis for withholding information
• Whether the use of negative (white) redactions by CSIS was appropriate
• Whether citing exemptions only in response letters by CSIS was appropriate
• Whether CSIS's practice contravened the duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether CSIS's practice contravened the severance requirement under section 25 ATIA
• Whether clearly marking redactions and exemptions on records would reveal protected information or cause harm

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) held by two named individuals. The investigation revealed that DND's Office of Primary Interest misread the request, limiting the search to only 'reports of UAP' instead of the broader 'general subject of UAP', and also unnecessarily restricted its search to keywords. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) requested DND to perform an additional search, which resulted in the retrieval of 11 additional pages of records. The Commissioner concluded that DND did not conduct a reasonable search. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DND was ordered to provide access to the additional records.

• Whether National Defence conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the Office of Primary Interest misread the access request
• Whether limiting the search to keywords constituted a reasonable search

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning records of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1989-1995. These records pertained to migration trends and global developments. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that the Canadian Government had previously disclosed similar records and that the information reflected public and Parliamentary debate, leading the OIC to conclude that disclosure would not harm national security or international relations. Consequently, the OIC determined that the requirements for exemption under subsection 15(1) were not met. As a result of the OIC's intervention, LAC disclosed the records in their entirety on January 20, 2023. The complainant expressed satisfaction with this disclosure.

• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (national security and international relations) was properly applied to records of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1989-1995
• Whether disclosure of the records would cause harm to national security or international relations

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought information related to applications and Minimum Safe Manning (MSM) Documents for the passenger ship, Queen of Cumberland. During the investigation, the complainant removed the s.19(1) aspect from the complaint. The OIC found that Transport Canada and the third party (BC Ferries) failed to demonstrate that all requirements for the s.20(1)(b) exemption were met. Specifically, the OIC was not convinced that all information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical, nor that it was consistently treated as confidential or supplied by the third party. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). Transport Canada indicated it would likely comply with the order.

• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was supplied to a government institution by a third party under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the relationship between the government and the third party is fostered for public benefit by the confidential communication

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), and 24(1) of the Access to Information Act regarding records about Canadian universities' engagement in the Federal Contractors Program. The OIC removed the s.24(1) claim from the scope of the complaint as the only information withheld under it (business numbers) was no longer at issue. The Commissioner found that ESDC did not demonstrate that all information withheld under s.19(1) was personal information about identifiable individuals, nor did it appropriately exercise its discretion under s.19(2)(b). Furthermore, neither ESDC nor the third party (University of Waterloo) demonstrated that the requirements of s.20(1)(b) were met for a completed Employment Equity Achievement Awards Application Form. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information at issue. ESDC subsequently gave notice that it would fully implement the order.

• Whether information withheld under s.19(1) was personal information about identifiable individuals
• Whether ESDC properly severed non-personal information from personal information under s.19(1)
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2)(b) regarding publicly available information
• Whether the Employment Equity Achievement Awards Application Form met the requirements of s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly responded to an access request by invoking subsection 10(2) of the Access to Information Act, neither confirming nor denying the existence of records, and stating that if records existed, they would be withheld under subsection 16(2). The OIC found that TMC failed to demonstrate that the existence or absence of records itself warranted withholding, especially since TMC had previously confirmed the existence of similar records in response to a nearly identical request. The Commissioner also determined that TMC did not show how all responsive records, if they existed, could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2). Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that TMC's reliance on subsection 10(2) was not justified. The complaint was found to be well founded, and TMC was ordered to provide a new response confirming or denying the existence of records and, if records exist, to provide access unless a specific exemption applies.

• Whether the institution met the requirements for invoking subsection 10(2) of the ATIA
• Whether the existence or absence of records itself is information that warrants being withheld under the Act
• Whether, if responsive records existed, they could reasonably be exempted under specific provisions of the Act
• Whether the institution's reliance on subsection 10(2) was a reasonable exercise of discretion
• Whether disclosure of records could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2)

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld information related to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, specifically concerning biofilm and shorebirds, under several exemptions of the Access to Information Act. The complaint initially included exemptions s.16(2) and s.19(1), but these were later removed from the scope of the investigation. The OIC found that ECCC had appropriately applied s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) to most of the withheld records, as they constituted advice, recommendations, or accounts of consultations. However, ECCC's application of s.20(1)(b), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b) to a scientific manuscript was deemed improper, as the manuscript was found not to be confidential and ECCC later agreed to its disclosure. The Commissioner also noted inconsistencies in ECCC's disclosure practices. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC was ordered to disclose the manuscript and correct the inconsistencies.

• Whether s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied (removed from scope)
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied (removed from scope)
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether the scientific manuscript was 'financial, commercial, scientific or technical' information under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the scientific manuscript was 'confidential' under s.20(1)(b) (Air Atonabee test)
• Whether the information in the scientific manuscript was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information in the scientific manuscript as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to the scientific manuscript
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to other records
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to other records
• Whether ECCC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b)
• Whether there were inconsistencies in ECCC's disclosure of information

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act, including s.16(2), s.19(1), s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, and s.69(1), related to the Alternate Independent Process for St-Anne’s Residential School hearings. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the s.19(1) allegation. The Commissioner found that Justice appropriately applied s.16(2), s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), and s.69(1). However, Justice could not demonstrate that all information withheld under s.23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) met the exemption's requirements, particularly regarding communications outside the direct solicitor-client relationship or where common interest privilege was not established. The Commissioner recommended disclosure of the improperly withheld s.23 information. Justice maintained its position on s.23 but committed to reviewing the records for potential disclosure. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.16(2) facilitating the commission of an offence was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.16(2)
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.21(1)(a)
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations was properly applied
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.21(1)(b)
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client privilege was properly applied to all communications
• Whether s.23 litigation privilege was properly applied to all communications
• Whether common interest privilege was established for s.23 claims
• Whether discretion was reasonably exercised for s.23
• Whether s.69(1) Cabinet confidences was properly applied

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act, concerning regulations under the Food and Drugs Act and related litigation. The Information Commissioner found that the withheld information did meet the requirements for solicitor-client privilege. However, LAC failed to demonstrate that it had reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding whether to disclose the information, as it did not provide evidence of considering all relevant factors for and against disclosure. The Commissioner noted that the records were nearly 90 years old and had historical significance, suggesting that exceptional circumstances might exist to warrant disclosure. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered LAC to re-exercise its discretion, taking into account all relevant factors, including the age and historical significance of the records. LAC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client privilege)
• Whether the communications were between a lawyer/notary and client
• Whether the communications related to seeking or giving legal advice
• Whether the parties intended the communication to remain confidential
• Whether there was an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege due to prior disclosure
• Whether there was a selective waiver of privilege
• Whether LAC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose the information under s.23 ATIA
• Whether LAC considered all relevant factors for and against disclosure

An individual complained that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) over-disclosed their personal information to the Information Commissioner (IC) when seeking approval to decline two Access to Information Act (ATIA) requests. The CBSA provided not only information related to the ATIA requests but also a sensitive labour relations report about the complainant. The CBSA argued the disclosure was a "consistent use" under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act, as the information was collected in the context of workplace conflict and the disclosure was to determine how to handle the complainant's requests for their personal information. The OPC found that while information related to the ATIA requests was a consistent use, the disclosure of the labour relations report was not, as its original purpose (addressing workplace conflict) was distinct from responding to ATIA requests. The OPC concluded that the CBSA contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act and recommended the CBSA develop guidance for consistent use disclosures. The CBSA disagreed with the finding and declined to implement the recommendation, leading to a "well-founded and not resolved" outcome.

• Whether the disclosure of personal information to the Information Commissioner was for a "consistent use" under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether information collected for administering ATIA requests can be disclosed to the IC as a consistent use
• Whether a labour relations report, originally collected for addressing workplace conflict, can be disclosed to the IC as a consistent use in the context of ATIA requests

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information related to a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft system (MCAS) under various exemptions of the Access to Information Act. Transport Canada initially withheld all records under paragraphs 20(1)(a), (b), and (c), and the third party, Boeing, also suggested the application of subsection 13(1). The Commissioner found that Transport Canada and Boeing did not demonstrate that all the withheld information met the requirements for trade secrets under paragraph 20(1)(a), nor for confidential third-party information under paragraph 20(1)(b), particularly for general or publicly available information. Similarly, the Commissioner found that the institution failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm for all information under paragraph 20(1)(c). The Commissioner also concluded that subsection 13(1) did not apply as the information was not provided in confidence. Furthermore, Transport Canada's exercise of discretion under subsection 20(6) was deemed unreasonable as it did not consider the public interest related to the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to disclose specific information and re-exercise discretion.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied (removed from scope)
• Whether s.20(1)(a) trade secrets exemption was properly applied to all records
• Whether the information was secret for s.20(1)(a)
• Whether the third party intended to treat the information as secret for s.20(1)(a)
• Whether the information had industrial or commercial application for s.20(1)(a)
• Whether the third party had an interest worthy of legal protection for s.20(1)(a)
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied to all records
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical for s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was confidential for s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution for s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential for s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied to all records
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised discretion under s.20(5) regarding disclosure with consent
• Whether Transport Canada reasonably exercised discretion under s.20(6) for public health or public safety reasons
• Whether s.13(1) confidential information from government bodies exemption was properly applied
• Whether the information was obtained in confidence from a government body for s.13(1)

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a Designated Substances Report for the Health Protection Building. PSPC provided some records but withheld others, claiming they were not under its control as they were held by a subcontractor, BGIS. The Information Commissioner investigated whether the records were under PSPC's control and whether a reasonable search was conducted. The Commissioner found that despite not having physical possession, the records were under PSPC's control due to the contractual relationship with BGIS, which included a legally enforceable right to obtain such documents. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that PSPC had not conducted a reasonable search for these controlled records. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PSPC was ordered to retrieve and process the records. However, PSPC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order.

• Whether records not in physical possession of the institution are 'under the control' of the institution for the purposes of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the contents of the record relate to an institutional matter
• Whether the institution could reasonably expect to obtain a copy of the record upon request
• Whether the legal relationship between the institution and the record holder indicates control
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records under its control

The complainant alleged that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) improperly withheld information from an Aviation Occurrence Reporting Form and photographs related to an Air Inuit incident, citing subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC investigation into subsection 19(1) was discontinued at the complainant's request. The Commissioner found that TSB and the third party, Air Inuit, failed to provide sufficient evidence or representations to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements for confidentiality, commercial nature, potential financial impact, or interference with negotiations under paragraphs 20(1)(b), (c), and (d). Specifically, the Commissioner was not convinced the information was commercial, confidential, or that its disclosure would cause the claimed harms. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered TSB to disclose all information at issue, excluding any information previously withheld under subsection 19(1). TSB notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether disclosing the information could interfere with those negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm under s.20(1)(d) ATIA