Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office's (PCO) record-keeping practices for appointment processes did not comply with the Access to Information Act, specifically regarding interview notes. PCO stated that interview notes are considered transitory records, used to support deliberations, and are destroyed after appointments, with only the final advice letter to the Minister being the official record. The Commissioner found no evidence that records were destroyed with the intent to deny access, concluding the notes were transitory and their destruction did not violate the Act. The complaint was therefore not well founded.

• Whether PCO's practice of destroying interview notes constitutes non-compliance with the Access to Information Act.
• Whether the interview notes qualify as transitory records that can be disposed of.
• Whether the destruction of interview notes with intent to deny access constitutes an offence under section 67.1 of the Act.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld third-party information and failed to conduct a reasonable search. The request was for documents related to stakeholder consultations on drug regulations. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada did not meet the requirements to exempt the third-party names under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, nor did it conduct a reasonable search. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the third-party names and perform a new search.

• Exemption of third-party names under paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Definition of 'financial, commercial, scientific or technical information'
• Objective confidentiality of information

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued that the request was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner agreed that the request was an abuse of the right of access and granted the institution approval to decline to act on it.

• Whether the access request is vexatious
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access