Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought documents detailing the total remuneration of the 250 highest-paid unionized employees of CBC's French services for two fiscal years. The CBC withheld approximately 25 exact individual salaries per fiscal year, citing paragraph 18(b) related to competitive position. The investigation found that disclosing these specific salaries could reasonably injure the CBC's competitive position in the limited and competitive French broadcasting market, as it could be used in salary negotiations and impact employee retention. The Commissioner concluded that the CBC properly applied paragraph 18(b) and reasonably exercised its discretion by balancing its mandate with the need to manage resources in a competitive market. Given the applicability of paragraph 18(b), the Commissioner did not assess the application of subsection 19(1). The complaint was therefore not well founded.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position) was properly applied to withhold exact individual salaries
• Whether disclosing the information could reasonably be expected to injure the competitive position of the institution
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding to withhold the information under s.18(b)
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to withhold exact individual salaries

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information related to a contract for an Advanced Access to Information and Privacy consultant. ESDC had withheld portions of the records under various exemptions, including personal information (s.19(1)), third-party financial harm (s.20(1)(c)), consultations or deliberations (s.21(1)(b)), solicitor-client privilege (s.23), and statutory prohibitions (s.24(1)). The Commissioner found that ESDC improperly applied s.19(1) to certain information in a consultant's CV related to their position, function, and responsibilities, as this fell under exceptions to the definition of personal information. ESDC also failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to seek consent for the release of other personal information. For s.20(1)(c), the Commissioner found that ESDC and third parties did not provide sufficient evidence to support the exemption for most of the withheld contract details, except for hourly rates. Regarding s.21(1)(b), ESDC failed to show that some withheld information constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations. The Commissioner upheld ESDC's application of s.23 and s.24(1). The complaint was found to be well founded, and ESDC was ordered to disclose the improperly withheld information and to make reasonable efforts to seek consent for other personal information.

• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to information in a consultant's CV related to position, function, and responsibilities
• Whether information related to position, function, and responsibilities falls under exceptions to the definition of personal information (Privacy Act s.3(j) and s.3(k))
• Whether ESDC made reasonable efforts to seek consent for the release of personal information under s.19(2)(a) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)(b) ATIA regarding publicly available personal information
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)(c) ATIA regarding public interest in disclosure of personal information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to hourly rates
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to names and details of candidates
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied to contract details (number of hours, days per week, maximum value of amendments, reference to third-party contract)
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of material financial loss or harm to competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to specific pages of records
• Whether information withheld under s.21(1)(b) constituted factual information
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) was properly applied
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised discretion under s.23 ATIA
• Whether s.24(1) ATIA (disclosure restricted by another law) was properly applied to supplier business numbers under s.241 of the Income Tax Act

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld "Repayments to Date" figures for 16 projects related to 12 third parties under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED and several third parties argued that disclosure could lead to material financial impact or harm competitive position. The Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties demonstrated a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of the specific repayment figures and a reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner also considered, but rejected, the applicability of paragraph 20(1)(d) for one third party, finding insufficient evidence of interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the withheld "Repayments to Date" figures. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party or harm to competitive position) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(c)
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party) was properly applied to "Repayments to Date" figures
• Whether there was a clear and direct connection between disclosure and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible for s.20(1)(d)

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on an access request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The request sought records related to disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure and Protection Act, submitted by or provided to the requester. The institution contended that the request was part of a pattern of repetitive and duplicative requests for substantively the same information, much of which the requester already possessed or had provided to the institution. The Commissioner found that the institution successfully demonstrated that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access, noting the repeated requests for identical information and the requester's refusal to narrow the scope. The Commissioner also determined that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist obligations by attempting to clarify and refine the request. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under s.4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA

The Information Commissioner ceased investigation into complaint 5819-02602. The complainant had indicated a desire to pursue the matter solely as a point of principle, despite the underlying issue for which the information was sought having already been settled. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's apparent lack of interest in actually obtaining the records, coupled with the request to continue the investigation based purely on principle, rendered the complaint trivial. Consequently, the investigation was ceased under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act, which permits the Commissioner to discontinue an investigation if the complaint is deemed trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

• Whether the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith under paragraph 30(4)(a) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information related to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations. The CRA had released a list of company names but withheld the total CEWS amounts received by each company, citing subsections 24(1), 16(1)(c), and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) focused its investigation on subsection 24(1), which mandates refusal of disclosure if restricted by a Schedule II provision. The OIC found that the withheld information constituted "taxpayer information" as defined by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, a Schedule II provision, because it related to identifiable taxpayers and was obtained or prepared by CRA for administering the Income Tax Act. Since subsection 24(1) was found to apply, the OIC did not assess the applicability of subsections 16(1)(c) and 19(1) to the same information. The Commissioner concluded that the information was properly withheld, and the complaint was not well founded.

• Whether the withheld information constitutes "taxpayer information" under section 241 of the Income Tax Act
• Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts disclosure of the information under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA
• Whether subsection 24(1) ATIA was properly applied to withhold the information
• Whether paragraph 16(1)(c) ATIA applies to the information (not considered)
• Whether subsection 19(1) ATIA applies to the information (not considered)

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request by the extended due date. The request sought all documents related to the Copyright Media Clearance Program for a specific period. PSPC had extended the response deadline by 420 days, but failed to provide a response by the new due date. The OIC found that PSPC did not meet its obligation to respond within the time limits, leading to a deemed refusal of access. Despite PSPC citing resource limitations and COVID-19 related difficulties, the Commissioner concluded that these were not valid reasons for continued delay. The Commissioner ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days, but PSPC indicated it would not fully implement the order, proposing a phased approach with a later completion date.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act