Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 18.1(1), and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a health and safety strategy report and related invoicing from DuPont Sustainable (DSS). The OIC found that Canada Post failed to demonstrate that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) met the requirements for confidentiality, third-party supply, or consistent confidential treatment. Similarly, for subsection 18.1(1), Canada Post did not show that the information constituted a trade secret or confidential financial/commercial information belonging to it, or that it was consistently treated as confidential. However, the OIC upheld the application of subsection 19(1) for personal contact information. The Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and subsection 18.1(1). Canada Post agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to contact details
• Whether the information was about an individual
• Whether there was a serious possibility of identification
• Whether the information fell under exceptions to 'personal information' in the Privacy Act
• Whether s.19(2) ATIA circumstances (consent, public availability, consistency with Privacy Act s.8) existed
• Whether Canada Post reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to invoice details
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (not publicly available)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (reasonable expectation of confidence)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (relationship fostered for public benefit)
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether s.18.1(1) ATIA (trade secrets or confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post) was properly applied to invoice and presentation content
• Whether the information constituted a 'trade secret'
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to Canada Post
• Whether Canada Post consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether s.18.1(2) ATIA (general administration exclusion) applied

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. The request sought records from specific dates related to parliamentary proceedings concerning the Public Health Agency of Canada and the National Microbiology Laboratory. Health Canada received the request and extended the response period by 210 days, but failed to respond by the extended deadline, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that Health Canada had completed processing the request but then put the response on hold, citing ongoing investigations into the National Microbiology Laboratory incident. The Information Commissioner found that the Act does not authorize an institution to 'pause' a response pending an investigation, emphasizing that concerns about sensitive information should be addressed through the timely application of exemptions. Although the Commissioner initially intended to order a response, Health Canada subsequently provided one, rendering the order unnecessary. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the statutory time limits or extended period
• Whether Health Canada's decision to 'pause' the response to an access request pending an investigation is authorized under the Access to Information Act
• Whether a deemed refusal occurred under subsection 10(3) of the Act