Canadian privacy & access decisions

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 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 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 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 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) 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

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information under several provisions of the Access to Information Act related to a vessel-seaplane collision. Transport Canada initially claimed exemptions under paragraphs 16(1)(c), 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b). During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, and Transport Canada dropped its reliance on 16(1)(c) and 21(1)(b). The Commissioner found that Transport Canada could not justify most of its claims under 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(d), except for a limited amount of information under 20(1)(b) that met all four requirements. Furthermore, Transport Canada failed to demonstrate that it had considered its obligation to exercise discretion under subsection 20(6) for the information that did meet the 20(1)(b) exemption. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the information for which exemptions were not justified and to properly exercise its discretion for the remaining information. Transport Canada indicated it would likely comply with the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.16(1)(c) ATIA (conduct of investigations) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was confidential 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 Transport Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(6) ATIA for information meeting s.20(1)(b)
• 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 s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning Joint Intelligence Committee Intelligence for NORAD records from 1958-63. During the investigation, LAC provided two supplementary releases of previously withheld information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) determined that NORAD qualifies as an international organization of states for the purposes of paragraph 13(1)(b). The OIC found that not all information initially exempted by LAC met the requirements of subsections 13(1) and 15(1), leading to a well-founded complaint. However, an order was deemed unnecessary because LAC had already released some information, and the remaining withheld information was found to properly meet the requirements of subsection 13(1).

• Whether information was properly withheld under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether NORAD constitutes an international organization of states or an institution thereof for the purposes of s.13(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a foreign state under s.13(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether information was obtained in confidence from an international organization of states under s.13(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances in s.13(2) ATIA existed (consent or public availability)
• Whether information was properly withheld under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant requested a full Issue Detail Report for a food complaint from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The CFIA 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. The complainant also alleged that the CFIA improperly used 'negative' (white) redactions, making it difficult to identify withheld portions. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1). The Commissioner found that the CFIA failed to meet its duty to assist by using negative redactions and recommended they cease this practice. For the third-party exemptions, the Commissioner determined that most of the information did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c), as the institution and third party did not sufficiently establish confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner ordered the CFIA to disclose most of the withheld third-party information, with specific exceptions for supplier names, procedural details, and product weighing processes. The CFIA agreed to implement the order and recommendation.

• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the CFIA's use of negative (white) redactions was appropriate under s.4(2.1) ATIA (duty to assist)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party for s.20(1)(c) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning expenses incurred for providing security to internationally protected persons visiting Canada. The request sought all records, including breakdowns by visitor, from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. In response, the RCMP provided only a two-page summary of costs, arguing that most records would likely be exempt or excluded under the Act, and that generating a summary was more expedient than reviewing an estimated 150,000 pages. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP did not demonstrate how the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records, nor did it adequately justify not identifying and locating the full records based on potential exemptions. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the RCMP was ordered to conduct a new search and provide a new response.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether providing a summary of records fulfills the obligation to search for 'all records'
• Whether the potential for exemptions justifies not identifying and locating all responsive records

The complainant requested records related to CSL Group Inc., specifically policy and workplace health and safety committee reports from 2012 to 2022. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) withheld information under several provisions of the Access to Information Act and was also alleged to have conducted an unreasonable search for records. The Commissioner found that ESDC failed to justify most of its exemption claims, including those under s.16(1)(c), s.16(2), s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), s.21(1)(b), and s.23. While some personal information and specific recommendations were properly withheld under s.19(1) and s.21(1)(a) respectively, ESDC's exercise of discretion for other s.21(1)(a) information was deemed unreasonable. Furthermore, ESDC failed to demonstrate that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose most of the withheld information, re-exercise discretion for certain records, and conduct a new, reasonable search for responsive records. ESDC notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.16(1)(c) ATIA (law enforcement, conduct of investigations)
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence)
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA (personal information)
• Whether the corporate address on page 136 constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether non-personal information on business cards on page 138 constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA regarding personal information
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact or injure competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations)
• Whether the information constitutes advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(a) ATIA regarding advice or recommendations
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the information constitutes accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether the information is subject to solicitor-client privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether the information is subject to litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether ESDC conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and failed to conduct a reasonable search for records. The request sought documents related to stakeholder consultations on amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations concerning COVID-19 drugs. The OIC found that neither Health Canada nor the third parties established that the names of the third parties met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), specifically regarding whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical, and whether it was confidential. The OIC also concluded that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search, noting issues with search parameters, lack of documentation, and failure to locate expected records. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the names of the third parties and conduct a new, comprehensive search for records. Health Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether the names of third parties constitute financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the names of third parties were confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third parties consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether Health Canada conducted a reasonable search for records