Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing their name. The investigation found that Canada Post did not demonstrate that all relevant offices had been tasked or that all responsive records were retrieved. Consequently, the Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to identify and process any additional responsive records and provide a final response to the complainant.

• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records.
• Whether all relevant offices of primary interest were tasked with searching for records.
• Whether Canada Post provided sufficient explanation for missing records.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to the export of beluga whales, citing personal information (subsection 19(1)) and confidential third-party commercial information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) exemptions. The OIC investigation focused on paragraph 20(1)(b) after the personal information aspect was removed from scope. DFO and the third party failed to demonstrate that the information met the criteria for confidentiality under paragraph 20(1)(b). Consequently, the Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DFO to disclose the records, excluding any information properly withheld under subsection 19(1). DFO indicated it would comply with the order.

• Whether the medical certificates provided by Marineland constitute confidential third-party commercial information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information was treated consistently as confidential by the third party.
• Whether the information was publicly available.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable amount of time to grant a time extension for an access to information request. The request was for records related to access requests concerning 'Project Anecdote'. LAC claimed a 1,095-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, pushing the response deadline to June 20, 2025. The Information Commissioner found that LAC met all the requirements for this extension, deeming it valid.

• Reasonableness of time extension claimed by institution under subsection 9(1)
• Whether institution met the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) for the extension