Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) improperly withheld information under section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought legal fees related to a specific litigation file. Justice claimed solicitor-client privilege over disbursements and details of expenses in a cost-recovery report, citing a presumption of privilege for lawyers' bills of account. The Information Commissioner acknowledged this presumption but found it rebutted in this case. The Commissioner determined there was no reasonable possibility that an inquirer could use the information to deduce privileged communications. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended that Justice disclose all information initially withheld under section 23. Justice agreed to implement the recommendation, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the information consists of communication between a lawyer or notary and his or her client
• Whether the communication relates directly to the seeking or giving of legal advice
• Whether the parties intend the communication and advice to remain confidential
• Whether the information was prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation
• Whether the litigation is either in progress or is reasonably expected to occur
• Whether the presumption of privilege for lawyers' bills of account was rebutted
• Whether there was a reasonable possibility that an assiduous inquirer could use the information to deduce or otherwise acquire communications protected by privilege

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request related to the Competition Bureau’s bread price-fixing investigation. ISED claimed a 1,460-day extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act, citing the large volume of records (over 75 million pages) and the need to search 100 terabytes of information. The OIC found that the request involved a large number of records and that meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with ISED's operations. The OIC also determined that ISED applied sufficient rigour in calculating the extension, considering the time needed by the program area and the Access to Information and Privacy Office, and the complexity of the records. Consequently, the OIC concluded that the 1,460-day extension was reasonable and justified. The complaint was not well founded, and the OIC invited ISED to consider disclosing completed packages of records as they become available.

• Whether the request was for a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances, under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Whether the institution validly claimed the extension of time by notifying the requester within 30 days

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) improperly refused to process an access request for records related to keywords such as 'counter-radicalization' and 'cyber radicalization', including associated metadata. Public Safety argued that portions of the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act due to the expansive volume of records and the complexity of identifying relevant information. The Commissioner agreed that some parts of the request were too broad, but found that other parts (Paragraph 1 and Schedule A) were sufficiently detailed and should have been processed. The Commissioner also determined that Public Safety failed to meet its legislated obligations by not claiming an extension of time and by refusing to process any part of the request. The complaint was found to be well founded, and Public Safety committed to processing the valid portions of the request at a rate of 5,000 pages per year.

• Whether the request provided sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee to identify records with reasonable effort (s.6 ATIA)
• Whether Public Safety was justified in refusing to process the entire request if only parts of it met s.6 ATIA requirements
• Whether Public Safety complied with its obligation to claim an extension of time under s.9(1) ATIA
• Whether Public Safety made every reasonable effort to assist the requester (s.4(2.1) ATIA)
• Whether Public Safety was required to consult on the term 'metadata' and provide records in the requested format

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, concerning a follow-up investigation related to a Code of Conduct decision against the complainant. During the investigation, the RCMP conceded that some of the withheld information was not personal information and issued a supplementary release. However, the RCMP maintained the application of subsection 19(1) on the remaining information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that the remaining withheld information was indeed personal information about another individual, meeting the requirements of the exemption. The OIC also concluded that none of the circumstances under subsection 19(2) that would warrant disclosure existed. Therefore, the complaint was found to be well founded because the RCMP initially withheld information that was not personal information, but the OIC upheld the exemption for the remaining records.

• Whether the information initially withheld by the RCMP constituted personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the remaining withheld information was personal information about another individual under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances for disclosure under s.19(2) ATIA existed

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) took an unreasonable time extension under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act for consultations. CSIS justified a 240-day extension, citing the necessity of consulting with two other government institutions, the high classification and sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review, and limited workplace access due to the pandemic. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that CSIS made a serious effort to determine the extension's length based on the pandemic's realities. The OIC concluded that the time extension was reasonable given the circumstances and that CSIS met the three requirements for claiming such an extension. Therefore, the complaint was not well founded.

• Whether the time extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations was reasonable
• Whether CSIS met the three requirements to claim the time extension

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine complaints regarding Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) failure to respond to nine access requests within the statutory deadlines or taking unreasonable time extensions. GAC cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor impacting its ability to process these requests. Despite the challenges, GAC committed to providing a final response for all nine files by October 15, 2021. The Commissioner found all nine complaints to be well founded, indicating that GAC improperly delayed access to the requested information. This decision highlights the institution's obligation to meet timelines under the Access to Information Act, even when facing operational difficulties.

• Whether Global Affairs Canada failed to respond to access requests within the statutory deadlines
• Whether Global Affairs Canada took unreasonable time extensions for access requests

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The requested information pertained to a complaint investigated by the RCMP. The OIC's investigation determined that the withheld information was obtained by the RCMP, an investigative body specified in the regulations, during a lawful investigation related to the detection, prevention, or suppression of crime. Furthermore, the information was created less than twenty years before the request. The OIC also found that the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion by considering relevant factors for and against disclosure, including the purpose of the Act and the private interests of other individuals. Consequently, the OIC concluded that the information met the requirements for exemption under paragraph 16(1)(a) and that the institution's decision to withhold it was appropriate.

• Whether the information was obtained or prepared by an investigative body listed in Schedule I of the Access to Information Regulations
• Whether the information was obtained or prepared during a lawful investigation within the authority of the investigative body
• Whether the investigation concerned the detection, prevention, or suppression of crime, enforcement of law, or threats to security of Canada
• Whether the information was created less than 20 years before the access request
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to release the information under s.16(1)(a)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought income-related information regarding business ownership for a specific individual. The CRA claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure because section 241 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) restricts its release. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that the requested information constituted "taxpayer information" as defined in subsection 241(10) of the ITA, meaning it related to an identifiable taxpayer (not the complainant) and was obtained by the CRA for administering the ITA. Consequently, the OIC concluded that the information met the requirements for exemption under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA. The complaint was therefore deemed not well founded.

• Whether the requested information falls under the definition of "taxpayer information" in subsection 241(10) of the Income Tax Act
• Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of the requested information
• Whether subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act applies to exempt the information from disclosure

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to two access requests concerning personal or designated producers and users of medical cannabis. Health Canada provided records from one database but argued that retrieving additional potentially relevant information from a second database would be unreasonable due to the extensive manual labour required. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) agreed with Health Canada's position. The OIC found that the institution's search was reasonable, considering the burden of retrieving records from the second database. Consequently, the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether Health Canada conducted a reasonable search for records under s.4 of the ATIA

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld annual statistics related to processing access to information and privacy requests, citing section 26 of the Access to Information Act. Transport Canada argued that the information was intended for future publication. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated whether the institution met the criteria for applying section 26 and properly exercised its discretion. The OIC found that Transport Canada had satisfied the requirements for section 26 and had considered all relevant factors for and against disclosure. Consequently, the OIC concluded that the institution's decision to withhold the records was appropriate.

• Whether s.26 ATIA (information to be published) was properly applied
• Whether Transport Canada appropriately exercised its discretion under s.26 ATIA

The Information Commissioner initiated a complaint against Canadian Heritage (PCH) after reports indicated the institution had suspended processing access requests due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation revealed that PCH's Access to Information and Privacy Secretariat could not access its work premises or departmental network remotely between March 16, 2020, and July 10, 2020. This resulted in a backlog of 224 access requests. The Commissioner found that PCH's failure to respond to these requests was not justified by any of the circumstances outlined in subsection 9(1) of the Act, thereby breaching requesters' quasi-constitutional rights of access. The complaint was deemed well-founded, and the Commissioner made six recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who agreed to implement corrective measures.

• Whether the institution's suspension of access request processing constituted a breach of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's failure to respond to requests was justified under subsection 9(1) of the Act

The complainant challenged Transport Canada's decision to withhold information concerning vehicle safety recall completion rates, citing sections 14, 20, and 21 of the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) requested submissions from the complainant, Transport Canada, and a third party. The Commissioner determined that neither Transport Canada nor the third party had adequately demonstrated that the claimed exemptions applied to the information in question. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended that Transport Canada disclose all previously withheld information, excluding any personal information. Transport Canada confirmed its intention to implement these recommendations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.14 ATIA (federal-provincial affairs) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20 ATIA (third-party information) applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21 ATIA (advice and recommendations) applied to the withheld information
• Whether Transport Canada and the third party met their burden of proof for the claimed exemptions

The complainant challenged VIA Rail's decision to withhold information concerning a High Frequency Rail Proposal. VIA Rail had applied multiple exemptions under the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that VIA Rail failed to demonstrate that the withheld information properly fell within the scope of the claimed exemptions. Furthermore, VIA Rail did not perform a severance exercise to release non-exempt portions of the records. The Commissioner recommended that VIA Rail conduct a severance exercise, disclose all information not meeting exemption criteria, and properly exercise discretion for any remaining exempt information. Consequently, the complaint was deemed well founded.

• Whether the information fell within the scope of the exemptions claimed under s.18 ATIA
• Whether the information fell within the scope of the exemptions claimed under s.21 ATIA
• Whether VIA Rail conducted a proper severance exercise to disclose non-exempt information

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1971 within the time limits stipulated by the Access to Information Act. PCO had claimed an extension, partly for consultations with other government institutions. When these consultations were not completed by the deadline, PCO informed the complainant it would not process the request, citing its 'no late file' policy. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that the Act does not permit an institution to cease processing a request due to outstanding consultations. Consequently, PCO was deemed to have refused the request under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner recommended that PCO respond to the request and revise its policy to comply with the Act. PCO agreed to implement both recommendations, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's 'no late file' policy, which led to closing a file due to outstanding consultations, is compliant with the Act
• Whether the institution was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act