Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended time limit, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought historical records related to the Canadian Intelligence Program and the Joint Intelligence Organization. The investigation confirmed that LAC did not respond by the extended deadline of February 13, 2020, for a request received in July 2019. Despite the records comprising 135 pages and a consultation with Global Affairs Canada being completed, LAC had not finalized processing the request almost five years later. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered LAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days. However, LAC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order due to workload prioritization, stating the records required careful review and further consultation.

• Whether Library and Archives Canada responded to the access request within the extended time limit under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Library and Archives Canada is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to "Ops 3" and "Ops 4" files under the Access to Information Act. Initially, PCO provided only two pages, which were a Records Retention and Disposal Authority form, not the requested operational records. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that PCO's initial search was inadequate, particularly as no documents from specific Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence files, which were known to exist, were located. Following the OIC's intervention, PCO conducted a subsequent search and identified 251 additional responsive pages. The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded because PCO did not conduct a reasonable search initially. PCO was ordered to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a supplementary response to the access request by December 22, 2024. PCO has committed to implementing this order.

• Whether the Privy Council Office conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records from the Deputy Minister’s Office concerning the funding or fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations between January 1, 2016, and April 1, 2019. The investigation revealed that CIRNAC's initial search was inadequate, as it did not task all relevant sectors despite internal recommendations and evidence suggesting the existence of more records. Specifically, the Policy and Strategic Direction (PSD) sector and the Audit and Evaluation sector were not initially tasked, even though the Deputy Minister's Office suggested their relevance. Furthermore, CIRNAC did not adequately explain why records from PSD prior to 2017 were inaccessible or why there was a paucity of records despite the Deputy Minister's known involvement in related discussions. The Commissioner concluded that CIRNAC did not conduct a reasonable search and ordered the institution to perform a new search and provide a revised response.

• Whether Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada conducted a reasonable search for records from the Deputy Minister’s Office relating to funding or fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations from January 1, 2016 to April 1, 2019
• Whether all relevant sectors were tasked in the search
• Whether the inaccessibility of records prior to 2017 was adequately explained
• Whether the paucity of located records was reasonable given the Deputy Minister's involvement

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought internal and external records related to a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Regulations Amending the Tobacco Products Regulations. Health Canada acknowledged that it had not responded by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3). The institution identified 20,250 pages of responsive records and indicated that extensive consultations with its Legal Services Unit, 10 other government departments, and 25-30 third parties would be required. Health Canada proposed a response date of July 17, 2030, citing the volume and complexity of records, and workload. The Commissioner found this proposed timeline unreasonable given the significant delay already incurred and the complainant's denied access rights. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to provide a complete response by April 7, 2026, which the institution agreed to implement.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Health Canada's proposed response date of July 17, 2030, was reasonable

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act and failed to conduct a reasonable search for records. The request sought records related to the funding of a medical residency training program. DND conceded that it had not properly applied subsection 19(1) in all instances and issued a supplementary disclosure, with the Commissioner finding the remaining withholdings appropriate. However, the Commissioner concluded that DND did not conduct a reasonable search initially, as additional records were found during the investigation, and some responsive records that should have existed were not retained. The Commissioner recommended DND ensure employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities. DND agreed to implement the recommendations and shared a plan for improving records management practices. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of subsection 19(1) ATIA
• Whether DND reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 19(2) ATIA
• Whether DND conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether DND failed to pursue inquiries to locate all responsive records

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, as required by subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records concerning meetings and lobbying efforts of Pathways Alliance Inc. between January 14, 2023, and May 4, 2023. ECCC received the request on May 4, 2023, and extended the response period by 120 days, setting a new deadline of October 10, 2023, which it failed to meet. The investigation revealed that delays were primarily due to two offices of primary interest (OPIs) taking over 10 months to retrieve responsive records. The Commissioner found this delay unacceptable and concluded that ECCC did not meet its obligations under the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC was ordered to provide a complete response by August 7, 2024, and was given recommendations to improve internal processes.

• Whether Environment and Climate Change Canada responded to the access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay in responding was attributable to a lack of responsiveness from Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period for documents related to Operation Safe Haven. The OIC found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), an Office of Primary Interest (OPI), which failed to provide responsive records in a timely manner. The Commissioner concluded that this delay was unacceptable and affected DND's ability to meet its obligations under the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days. The Commissioner also recommended DND develop better processes and accountability measures for OPIs regarding timely record provision.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
• Whether the delay by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM) in retrieving records was acceptable

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period for all documents relating to the course of action of Operation Aegis. The OIC found that DND received the request on September 1, 2023, and did not extend the response period or transfer the request, making the deadline October 1, 2023. DND failed to respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that delays were primarily due to the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), one of DND's Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), which had not yet provided all responsive records to the Departmental Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP) office. The Commissioner deemed CFINTCOM's delay unacceptable and emphasized the collective responsibility of the institution to ensure timely access to information. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence validly extended the 30-day period under section 9 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay by the Office of Primary Interest (Canadian Forces Intelligence Command) in retrieving records was acceptable

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) improperly withheld information related to the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Public Accountability and Transparency Requirements under several sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, SSHRC claimed exemptions under s.16(2)(c), s.19(1), s.20(1)(c), s.20(1)(d), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). During the investigation, the s.16(2)(c) claim was removed from the scope, and SSHRC additionally relied on s.20(1)(b). The Commissioner found that SSHRC appropriately withheld information under s.19(1) (personal information) and parts of s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) (advice/recommendations and consultations/deliberations), as the requirements for these exemptions were met and discretion was reasonably exercised. However, SSHRC failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements for s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d) due to insufficient evidence of confidentiality, financial impact, or interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered SSHRC to disclose all redacted information except that falling under s.19(1), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). SSHRC agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.16(2)(c) facilitating the commission of an offence applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.19(1) personal information applied to the withheld information
• Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) material financial impact on a third party applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied to the withheld information
• Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1989, citing subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, PCO agreed to cease reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) and committed to disclosing much of the previously withheld information, but continued to withhold specific categories under subsections 13(1) and 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), noting a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the contested information. However, PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendation, stating it would release a high percentage of the information after further interdepartmental consultations, but not the entirety.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1966. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits of Intelligence Community members, dissemination markings, names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that any of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), citing lack of evidence for confidentiality, public availability of similar information, and speculative harm arguments. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the remaining information, except for the names of Liaison Officers which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, stating it would disclose a high percentage but not all, and would conduct further interdepartmental consultations.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain intelligence report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1963 under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information, but maintained exemptions for specific categories. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence that the remaining withheld information met the requirements for exemption under either subsection 13(1) or 15(1). The Commissioner concluded that publicly available information and previous disclosures by Canada and allied countries discredited PCO's arguments for harm or confidentiality. The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose the information, with the exception of the names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, to which the complainant did not object. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, stating it would release a high percentage of the information after further consultations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for historical records related to the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1982-1983. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories. The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), citing a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the remaining records, with the exception of names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement her recommendations, stating that while a high percentage of information would be released, certain categories would remain withheld due to ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and consultations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security for s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1981 under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially claimed subsection 19(1) as well, but this was not pursued as the OIC found it was not applied to the contested information. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose much of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits by foreign intelligence community members, dissemination markings of classified reports, names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1) for the remaining withheld information, noting that similar information had been previously released by PCO and allied countries without apparent harm. The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded and recommended disclosure of the information. PCO, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, citing ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and the need for further consultations.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether the information was obtained from a specified government body in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
• Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO's arguments for harm under s.15(1) were speculative or demonstrated a reasonable expectation of probable harm

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979 under subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially withdrew its reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) as the records were over 20 years old. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information, but continued to withhold specific categories under subsections 13(1) and 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence that the information was obtained in confidence for subsection 13(1) to apply, and that PCO's arguments for harm under subsection 15(1) were speculative and contradicted by public disclosures and previous releases. The Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either exemption and recommended disclosure. PCO refused to implement the Commissioner's recommendations, stating it would disclose a high percentage of information but not all, and would conduct further consultations.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether the information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding titles of Liaison Officers
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding distribution markings
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding names of CSE employees
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain intelligence report titles
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding intelligence report titles
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (account of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied