Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Export Development Canada (EDC) improperly withheld information related to financial assistance provided to Canadian companies in Honduras. The request sought a summary of all financial assistance over $50,000 from 2009 to 2019. EDC claimed exemptions under subsections 18.1(1) (confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of EDC) and 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that EDC failed to demonstrate that the information "belonged to" it for the purpose of s.18.1(1), as it was shared with and retained by customers. For s.24(1), EDC invoked section 24.3 of the Export Development Act, but the Commissioner determined that the information was "created" by EDC, not "obtained" by it, thus falling outside the scope of the exemption. The Commissioner ordered EDC to disclose policy types, policy numbers, and maximum liability amounts. EDC partially implemented the order, disclosing only policy types, and indicated its intention to seek a Federal Court review regarding the interpretation of the Export Development Act.

• Whether the information "belongs to" EDC for the purpose of s.18.1(1) ATIA
• Whether EDC consistently treated the information as confidential for the purpose of s.18.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the information was "obtained by" EDC or "created by" EDC for the purpose of s.24.3(1) of the Export Development Act
• Whether the information falls under s.24(1) ATIA due to s.24.3(1) of the Export Development Act

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. improperly withheld information related to the "Autopsy of a Murder" exhibit under several sections of the Access to Information Act. The withheld records included contracts, photographs, and inventory lists. The institution claimed exemptions under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d) for competitive position and financial interests, subsection 19(1) for personal information, and paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) for third-party financial impact and negotiations. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm for the exemptions under section 18 and 20. Regarding subsection 19(1), the Commissioner determined that the photographs of human remains either did not identify an individual or related to individuals deceased for over 20 years, thus not qualifying as personal information. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of all information at issue.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to photographs of human remains
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to signatures (removed from scope)
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party) was properly applied
• Whether the Coroner's office had a right to make representations as a third party under s.35(2)(c) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information related to a contract for an Advanced Access to Information and Privacy consultant. ESDC had withheld portions of the records under various exemptions, including personal information (s.19(1)), third-party financial harm (s.20(1)(c)), consultations or deliberations (s.21(1)(b)), solicitor-client privilege (s.23), and statutory prohibitions (s.24(1)). The Commissioner found that ESDC improperly applied s.19(1) to certain information in a consultant's CV related to their position, function, and responsibilities, as this fell under exceptions to the definition of personal information. ESDC also failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to seek consent for the release of other personal information. For s.20(1)(c), the Commissioner found that ESDC and third parties did not provide sufficient evidence to support the exemption for most of the withheld contract details, except for hourly rates. Regarding s.21(1)(b), ESDC failed to show that some withheld information constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations. The Commissioner upheld ESDC's application of s.23 and s.24(1). The complaint was found to be well founded, and ESDC was ordered to disclose the improperly withheld information and to make reasonable efforts to seek consent for other personal information.

• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to information in a consultant's CV related to position, function, and responsibilities
• Whether information related to position, function, and responsibilities falls under exceptions to the definition of personal information (Privacy Act s.3(j) and s.3(k))
• Whether ESDC made reasonable efforts to seek consent for the release of personal information under s.19(2)(a) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)(b) ATIA regarding publicly available personal information
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)(c) ATIA regarding public interest in disclosure of personal information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to hourly rates
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to names and details of candidates
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to contract details (number of hours, days per week, maximum value of amendments, reference to third-party contract)
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of material financial loss or harm to competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to specific pages of records
• Whether information withheld under s.21(1)(b) constituted factual information
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) was properly applied
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.23 ATIA
• Whether s.24(1) ATIA (disclosure restricted by another law) was properly applied to supplier business numbers under s.241 of the Income Tax Act

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld "Repayments to Date" figures for 16 projects related to 12 third parties under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED and several third parties argued that disclosure could lead to material financial impact or harm competitive position. The Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties demonstrated a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of the specific repayment figures and a reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner also considered, but rejected, the applicability of paragraph 20(1)(d) for one third party, finding insufficient evidence of interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the withheld "Repayments to Date" figures. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party or harm to competitive position) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(d)

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to its "E Norther" file and National Administrative Records Management System (NARMS). Specifically, the complainant identified the RCMP's Legal Services Unit as a potential source of records, but the RCMP initially refused to search this area, claiming the records would not be under its control. The OIC's investigation found that any such records would likely be under the RCMP's control. The RCMP subsequently agreed to task its Legal Services Unit, which led to the identification and release of additional records to the complainant. The Commissioner concluded that the RCMP's initial search was not reasonable and ordered the RCMP to confirm with an outstanding Office of Primary Interest (OPI) and process any further responsive records. The RCMP later confirmed that the outstanding OPI had responded and an additional response was sent to the complainant.

• Whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether records held by the RCMP's Departmental Legal Services Unit were under the control of the RCMP

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request by the extended due date. The request sought all documents related to the Copyright Media Clearance Program for a specific period. PSPC had extended the response deadline by 420 days, but failed to provide a response by the new due date. The OIC found that PSPC did not meet its obligation to respond within the time limits, leading to a deemed refusal of access. Despite PSPC citing resource limitations and COVID-19 related difficulties, the Commissioner concluded that these were not valid reasons for continued delay. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days, but PSPC indicated it would not fully implement the order, proposing a phased approach with a later completion date.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request by the extended due date 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 the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to a request for "all final decisions rendered pursuant to section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) from January 2018 until June 2020." The IRB provided only written decisions, stating that audio recordings are only provided when specifically requested. However, the OIC found that the IRB's ATIP office had erroneously informed its Office of Primary Interest that only written decisions were sought, thereby reducing the scope of the request without the complainant's approval. The Commissioner determined that "all final decisions" includes audio recordings, as a record under the Act means any documentary material regardless of medium or form. Consequently, the Commissioner found that the IRB did not perform a reasonable search.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether audio recordings fall within the scope of "all final decisions"

An anonymous applicant complained that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld "Total Repayment figures" related to several projects under the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) program, involving 21 third parties. ISED initially relied on paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, while some third parties also raised paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d). The Commissioner found that the information was financial and commercial but not objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b), as there was no reasonable expectation of non-disclosure for public funds, nor would confidentiality foster public benefit. For paragraph 20(1)(c), the Commissioner determined that neither ISED nor the third parties demonstrated a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a reasonable expectation of material financial harm or injury to competitive position, deeming their arguments speculative. Similarly, for paragraph 20(1)(d), insufficient evidence was provided to show that disclosure would interfere with contractual negotiations. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the Total Repayments figures at issue.

• Whether the Total Repayment figures are financial or commercial information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the Total Repayment figures are confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances of communication gave rise to a reasonable expectation of non-disclosure for the Total Repayment figures under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether confidential communication of the Total Repayment figures would foster the relationship between third parties and ISED for public benefit under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of the Total Repayment figures could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of the Total Repayment figures could reasonably be expected to injure the competitive position of a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether a clear and direct connection between disclosure and harm was demonstrated for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether arguments of public misunderstanding justify withholding information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of the Total Repayment figures could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether a clear and direct connection between disclosure and interference (obstruction) was demonstrated for s.20(1)(d) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) improperly refused to process an access request for records related to informal official language complaints. SSC argued that the request, even after being narrowed to a one-year timeframe and specific keywords in email subject lines, did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act because it would require tasking over 8,300 employees and create an unreasonable administrative burden. The Information Commissioner disagreed, stating that the term "reasonable effort" in section 6 refers to identifying records, not limiting the number of individuals tasked. The Commissioner also noted that the Act provides for time extensions for large requests and that the potential for redacting personal information under section 19 is not a valid reason to refuse processing. The Commissioner concluded that the request was sufficiently detailed and ordered SSC to process it.

• Whether the access request provided sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee to identify records with a reasonable effort under s.6 ATIA
• Whether the administrative burden on the institution constitutes a valid reason to refuse processing a request under s.6 ATIA
• Whether the potential for retrieving personal information that would be exempt under s.19 ATIA is a valid reason to refuse processing a request

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to provide records in response to an access request concerning a contract awarded to Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions (BGIS) and a related subcontract. PSPC initially stated it could not identify relevant records, arguing the subcontract was not under its control. The investigation found that while the records were not in PSPC's physical possession, they were under its control for the purposes of the Access to Information Act, based on the legal relationship between PSPC and BGIS and the terms of their contract. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC did not conduct a reasonable search because it made no effort to obtain the subcontract and related documents from BGIS. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner recommended PSPC retrieve and process the records. However, PSPC declined to implement the recommendations.

• Whether the subcontract and related records were "under the control" of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) for the purposes of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the contents of the record relate to an institutional matter
• Whether PSPC could expect to obtain a copy of the record upon request
• Whether PSPC conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to job creation estimates and estimated jobs maintained figures for projects that received assistance between 2011 and 2018. The complaint's scope was narrowed to information concerning eleven third parties, with only Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada (Toyota) providing representations to support the exemption claim. The Commissioner found that neither Toyota nor ISED demonstrated a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of material financial loss or harm to Toyota's competitive position, beyond mere speculation. Arguments regarding potential public misunderstanding were also deemed insufficient to meet the legal test for harm under s.20(1)(c), especially given that an explanatory note could address such concerns. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the information did not qualify for the exemption. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner recommended full disclosure, though ISED indicated it would not fully implement the recommendation for some Toyota-related information.

• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) applies to job creation estimates and estimated jobs maintained figures
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to a third party
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm beyond a mere possibility
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of a third party
• Whether arguments of public misunderstanding are sufficient to meet the legal test for harm under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether an explanatory note could prevent potential harm to a third party
• Whether ISED met its burden of proof for applying s.20(1)(c) to information where third parties did not provide representations

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada's (LAC) delayed responses to access requests. This investigation was prompted by a long-standing trend of LAC failing to meet legislative deadlines for responding to access requests, which worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation found that during the period under review, nearly 80% of requests completed by LAC did not comply with the timeframes set out in the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner informed the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as the head of LAC, of these findings and made ten recommendations. A special report was subsequently tabled in Parliament, highlighting issues within LAC and broader challenges in Canada's access to information system, specifically regarding inter-institutional consultations and the absence of a government-wide declassification framework.

• Whether Library and Archives Canada was responding to access requests within the legislative deadlines
• Whether the delays in responding to access requests constituted a systemic issue

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, concerning records related to $103 million in funding from the National Trade Corridors Fund. The OIC found that VFPA did not demonstrate that all information withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d) met the exemption requirements. Specifically, VFPA agreed to disclose some information initially withheld under these sections. For paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), neither VFPA nor the third party (Canadian National Railway) provided sufficient evidence to justify the exemptions. The Commissioner ordered VFPA to disclose all information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), and specific information withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d). VFPA subsequently agreed to implement the order, leading to a well-founded complaint.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position or negotiations of government institutions) was properly applied to fiscal year budgeting, Monitoring Committee, and project information
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position or negotiations of government institutions) was properly applied to estimated project expenditures and contributions
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to commodity information
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to certain project details
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to future development plans
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage economy, undue benefit) was properly applied to project costs
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(d) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to project descriptions and CN funding information
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard 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 s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party) was properly applied to the name of a contributor and contribution amount from CN
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of interference with third-party negotiations under s.20(1)(d) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took an unreasonable 2,280-day extension to respond to an access to information request. Justice claimed the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, citing a large volume of records and the need for consultations. The Information Commissioner found that while the request involved a large volume of records and responding within 30 days would interfere with operations, Justice failed to sufficiently justify the reasonableness of the 2,190-day extension claimed under 9(1)(a). Specifically, Justice did not explain how the duration of various processing steps was determined or why certain steps could not be conducted concurrently. However, the Commissioner found the 90-day extension for consultations under 9(1)(b) to be reasonable. Due to the unreasonable extension under 9(1)(a), Justice was deemed to have refused access. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and Justice was ordered to provide a final response forthwith.

• Whether the request was for a large volume of records or required searching through a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether responding within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether the length of the time extension claimed under s.9(1)(a) was reasonable
• Whether consultations with other institutions or bodies were necessary under s.9(1)(b)
• Whether the length of the time extension claimed under s.9(1)(b) was reasonable
• Whether the institution was in deemed refusal under s.10(3)

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into Library and Archives Canada's (LAC) persistent delays in responding to access requests, prompted by a history of non-compliance with legislative deadlines. The investigation found that LAC failed to meet its obligation to provide timely access, with almost 80% of requests completed after the statutory deadlines in 2020-21. Key contributing factors identified were the backlog from suspending ATIP operations during the pandemic, problematic consultation practices with other institutions, inadequate infrastructure for processing classified records, the absence of a government-wide declassification program, and insufficient ATIP funding and resources. The Commissioner concluded the complaint was well-founded and issued ten recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address these systemic issues. However, the Commissioner found the Minister's responses largely lacked urgency and concrete commitments, leading to concerns about the sufficiency of proposed measures. The Commissioner also tabled a special report to Parliament highlighting broader challenges in the access to information system.

• Whether Library and Archives Canada (LAC) met its obligation to provide timely access to records under subsection 4(2.1) and section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether LAC's suspension of ATIP operations during the early months of the pandemic contributed to delays and non-compliance
• Whether LAC's practices regarding consultations with other institutions were consistent with paragraph 9(1)(b) of the ATIA and the Interim Directive
• Whether LAC's lack of adequate infrastructure for digitizing, reviewing, and consulting on Secret and Top Secret records contributed to processing delays
• Whether the absence of a mandatory government-wide declassification program contributed to delays in processing classified records
• Whether the lack of adequate funding for LAC's ATIP office to support new programs introduced by other institutions contributed to its inability to provide timely access
• Whether the ATIP and Litigation Response Division's large workload, vacant positions, and staff instability contributed to delays in responding to access requests