Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request sought records concerning parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, related agreements, and the use of foreign workers. The investigation found that ISED did not respond by the required date and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to a lack of responsiveness from one of its offices. The Information Commissioner ordered ISED to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response under the ATIA
• Responsibility for delays within an institution

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information related to submissions for using Anafranil / Altius Clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder, citing exemptions related to third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. Both Health Canada and the third party indicated that due to the passage of time, the exemptions no longer applied. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered Health Canada to disclose the withheld information, which the institution agreed to do.

• Whether information was properly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the passage of time rendered the claimed exemptions inapplicable.
• The burden on institutions and third parties to justify exemptions.
• The need for a clear and direct connection between disclosure and expected harm to justify exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to commercial fishing agreements with Eskasoni First Nation (EFN). The information was claimed to be exempt under provisions related to personal information, and confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and potential financial impact on a third party. The Information Commissioner found that while some information met the criteria for personal information, much of the financial and commercial information was either publicly available, not truly confidential, or not supplied by a third party. The Commissioner also found the claim of financial impact was speculative. Therefore, the complaint was well-founded, and DFO was ordered to disclose most of the withheld information.

• Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Confidentiality and 'supplied by a third party' requirements under paragraph 20(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took an unreasonable amount of time to extend its response deadline for an access request concerning documents related to the parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN. The Information Commissioner found that while PSPC demonstrated the need for consultations due to a large volume of records, it failed to justify the 150-day extension for these consultations, relying instead on service standards rather than a genuine assessment of the time required. Consequently, the extension was deemed unreasonable, and PSPC was ordered to provide a complete response by June 1, 2026.

• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for volume of records
• Reasonableness of time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations
• Institution's failure to demonstrate genuine assessment of time required for consultations
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) due to unreasonable extension

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) improperly withheld records related to a 2000 settlement agreement with the Squamish Nation. CIRNAC claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that neither CIRNAC nor the Squamish Nation provided sufficient evidence to justify withholding the information under these exemptions. The Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety, but CIRNAC indicated it would not comply.

• Applicability of exemptions for confidential third-party financial/commercial/scientific/technical information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Applicability of exemptions for financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c))
• Applicability of exemptions for negotiations by a third party (s. 20(1)(d))
• Applicability of solicitor-client and litigation privilege (s. 23)

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to an application by Ridley Terminals Inc. for a berth expansion project. The information was withheld under exemptions related to personal information, confidential third-party commercial or technical information, and financial impact on a third party. The Information Commissioner found that DFO did not meet the requirements for withholding information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), but did meet the requirements for subsection 19(1) regarding personal information. DFO was ordered to disclose all information except for the personal information.

• Whether information qualifies as personal information under s. 19(1) ATIA.
• Whether information qualifies as confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under s. 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under s. 20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether information could reasonably be expected to interfere with the contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s. 20(1)(d) ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld contract information related to the aggregate extraction operation on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA) under exemptions related to third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and negotiations. The contract was between the OIAA and Thomas Cavanagh Construction Limited. The Information Commissioner found that while some information met the exemption criteria, much of it did not, particularly regarding confidentiality and the necessity of withholding. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose certain portions of the contract.

• Whether contract information between two third parties was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential and if its disclosure would foster a public benefit relationship.

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada improperly withheld information related to user agreements for the national public alerting system, citing personal information and third-party emergency management plans. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the need to investigate the personal information aspect. The Commissioner found that the agreements did not meet the criteria for third-party emergency management plans because they constituted negotiated terms rather than information supplied by a third party. The Commissioner also found that the institution's invocation of the exemption for facilitating an offence was not justified.

• Whether the information was 'supplied...by a third party' for the purposes of paragraph 20(1)(b.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information meets the criteria for third-party emergency management plans under paragraph 20(1)(b.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the disclosure of a DocuSign envelope identification number could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld records related to noise and vibration studies under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged the VFPA did not make reasonable efforts to assist them, providing illegible documents. The Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under exemptions like paragraph 18(b) concerning negotiations, much of the withheld information did not meet the exemption requirements. The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose certain records and provide legible copies of maps, photos, and tables, which the VFPA agreed to implement.

• Improper withholding of records under multiple ATIA exemptions (e.g., s. 13(1), s. 18(b), s. 18(d), s. 19(1), s. 20(1)(b), s. 21(1)(a), s. 21(1)(d)).
• Failure to make reasonable efforts to assist the requester (ATIA s. 4(2.1)) by providing illegible documents.
• Burden of proof on the institution and third parties to justify exemptions.
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution when withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request concerned "Activity Progress Reports" related to the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or "missing children" programs. CIRNAC cited "resource limitations" for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable, stating that resource constraints do not justify non-compliance with the Act, and ordered CIRNAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Justification for delays due to resource limitations
• Definition of a complete response under the Act

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an unreasonable time extension for an access request and improperly processed two requests as one. The request concerned updated consultation agreements and related internal government records. The Information Commissioner found the time extension for consultations with the Department of Justice unreasonable, citing excessive delays and lack of justification for the 90-day period. However, the Commissioner determined that CIRNAC was justified in processing the two requests as a single request.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultations
• Justification for the length of the extension
• Proper processing of multiple requests within a single request