Canadian Privacy Decisions

The Information Commissioner initiated an investigation into Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) regarding the processing of eight access to information requests made between July 2008 and January 2010. The investigation focused on potential interference in how these requests were handled. The Commissioner has reported her findings.

• Possibility of interference in the processing of access to information requests
• Timeliness and completeness of response by PWGSC

This systemic investigation examined the use and preservation of instant messages, such as BlackBerry PIN messages, on government devices. The investigation was prompted by complaints of missing records, including a case where devices were destroyed before an access request could be fulfilled. The OIC found that the use of instant messaging posed a risk to the right of access to information.

• Use and preservation of instant messaging on government devices
• Impact of instant messaging on the right of access to information
• Destruction of devices containing potential records
• Timeliness of access to information

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline processing part of an access request, arguing it was duplicative of information previously released informally. The Commissioner found the institution failed to demonstrate the request was vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right to access. The Commissioner also noted the institution did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support its claim of duplication. Therefore, the institution was ordered to process the access request.

• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to justify declining to act on part of an access request under section 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information sought in the formal request was duplicative of information previously released informally.
• Whether the Commissioner can make an informed decision based on the information provided by the institution.

The complainant alleged that a federal institution had failed to respond to an access request within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal. The Information Commissioner found the complaint inadmissible because it was not submitted within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's awareness of the deemed refusal began when the institution first failed to meet the statutory deadline, not on the date the complaint was filed.

• Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
• Definition of 'day on which the requester becomes aware' for deemed refusals
• Interpretation of 'ongoing' or 'continuing' deemed refusals
• Applicability of Federal Court and OIC precedent on complaint timeliness

The complainant filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's office regarding an access to information request. The institution provided its response in October 2021, including a notice that the complainant had sixty days to file a complaint. The complainant submitted their complaint in January 2022, which was outside the mandated timeframe. The Information Commissioner rejected the complaint because it was filed after the statutory deadline.

• Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
• Mandatory nature of statutory timeframes under the ATIA
• Commissioner's authority to extend statutory timeframes

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased investigating seventeen complaints. The complainant alleged that an institution's time extensions on seventeen access requests were unreasonable. However, the Commissioner found the requests were vexatious and substantively duplicative of a previous request where the institution's time extension was deemed reasonable. The Commissioner also noted the institution was providing interim responses as committed, and the complainant's actions suggested an attempt to circumvent previous findings.

• Whether the complaints were vexatious
• Whether further investigation was unnecessary
• Whether the requests were duplicative of a previous request
• Whether the complainant was attempting to circumvent previous findings