Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for records related to Tetra Tech, including peer reviewer comments. The OIC found that Health Canada failed to demonstrate that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) was objectively confidential or entirely supplied by the third party, as some information was publicly available or originated from Health Canada itself. Regarding paragraph 20(1)(c), the OIC concluded that neither Health Canada nor Tetra Tech demonstrated a reasonable expectation of competitive harm from disclosure. However, the OIC upheld the application of paragraph 21(1)(b) for certain internal consultations and found Health Canada's exercise of discretion to be reasonable for this exemption. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). Health Canada agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was objectively confidential
• Whether the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) was supplied by a third party to a government institution
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information withheld under s.20(1)(b) as confidential
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to injure the competitive position of a third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether the information withheld under s.21(1)(b) constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations
• Whether Health Canada reasonably exercised its discretion not to disclose information under s.21(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, concerning the Ksi Lisims LNG project. The complaint was later limited to specific pages, with page 57 also including a s.19(1) claim. The Commissioner found that the IAAC properly withheld personal information on page 57 under s.19(1), as no circumstances for disclosure under s.19(2) existed. For page 67, the Commissioner upheld the application of s.20(1)(c) for proprietary information but found the IAAC failed to exercise its discretion under s.20(6). However, the Commissioner rejected the application of s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d) for pages 62, 63, 65, and 73, determining the information was either publicly available or did not meet the exemption criteria for harm or confidentiality. Consequently, the complaint was found well-founded. The IAAC was ordered to disclose information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73, and to properly exercise discretion for page 67.

• Whether the information on page 57 constituted personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances for disclosure under s.19(2) ATIA existed for page 57
• Whether the IAAC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA for page 57
• Whether the information on page 67 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 the information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73 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 the IAAC failed to consider the circumstances and exercise discretion under s.20(6) ATIA for page 67
• Whether the information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73 was confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information provided by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information on pages 62, 63, 65, and 73 could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether the information on page 62 was publicly available
• Whether the information on pages 63, 65, and 73 was publicly available or its essence already disclosed

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records related to solicitation documents, approvals, and decisions from January 1, 2020, to April 8, 2024. SSC initially took a 750-day extension, citing a large volume of records (estimated at 15,000 pages) and difficulties with new ATIP Express software. The Information Commissioner found SSC's benchmark of processing 500 pages per month to be unreasonable and disagreed with factoring in anticipated software delays. The Commissioner acknowledged the challenges with the new software but emphasized that technology issues should not unduly affect requesters' access rights. The Commissioner concluded that the extension was unreasonable, leading to a deemed refusal of access. SSC subsequently agreed to provide interim releases every three months and a complete response by September 30, 2025. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the extension of time taken under s.9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period
• Whether the institution's processing benchmark of 500 pages per month was reasonable
• Whether anticipated delays due to new ATIP Express software should factor into the length of an extension
• Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access under s.10(3)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from November 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not initially conduct a reasonable search. During the investigation, PCO agreed to conduct a new search, which resulted in the retrieval of additional responsive records. PCO also indicated that it was consulting with Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence regarding the processing of these records. The Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records, provide access to them, and issue a supplementary response. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order and subsequently issued a supplementary response. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the Privy Council Office conducted a reasonable search for records under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act