Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing their name in response to an access request. The investigation by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that Canada Post had not demonstrated that all relevant Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) were tasked or that those tasked produced all relevant records. The OIC noted the absence of certain record types, such as personnel files, overtime sheets, and day logs, which the complainant identified as missing or incomplete. Canada Post could not provide sufficient explanation for these omissions, nor for why only one work location was tasked when the complainant worked at several. The Commissioner concluded that Canada Post did not conduct a reasonable search. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and Canada Post was ordered to conduct a more thorough search and process any newly identified records.

• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether all relevant Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) were tasked
• Whether all relevant records under the OPIs' control were produced

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act. The requested records were medical certificates provided by Marineland for the export of five beluga whales. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1), removing it from the scope of the complaint. The Commissioner found that DFO and Marineland failed to demonstrate that the information met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), specifically that the information was confidential and consistently treated as such. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered DFO to disclose the records in their entirety, excluding any information previously withheld under subsection 19(1). DFO agreed to implement the order.

• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to the medical certificates
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was confidential
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether the information was available from sources otherwise accessible by the public
• Whether the information originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation of non-disclosure
• Whether the information was communicated in a fiduciary relationship or one not contrary to the public interest

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records related to "Project Anecdote." LAC claimed a 1,095-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Access to Information Act, setting the response deadline to June 20, 2025. During the investigation, LAC demonstrated that its calculation for the extension was logical and supportable, and that providing the records sooner would unreasonably interfere with its operations. LAC also showed that necessary consultations could not be completed within 30 days. The Office of the Information Commissioner concluded that LAC met all the requirements for the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b). Consequently, the extension was deemed valid, and the complaint was found to be not well founded.

• Whether the 1,095-day extension of time taken by Library and Archives Canada was reasonable under s.9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable under s.9(1)(a) and (b)
• Whether providing access within a materially lesser period would unreasonably interfere with operations under s.9(1)(a)
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under s.9(1)(b)