Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documents related to Operation Safe Haven. The Information Commissioner found that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond within the timeframe, deeming access refused. The Commissioner specifically cited unacceptable delays by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command in retrieving records. An order was issued for National Defence to provide a complete response within 60 business days, along with recommendations for improving internal processes and accountability for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond within the statutory 30-day period
• Unacceptable delay in retrieving records from an Office of Primary Interest (CFINTCOM)
• Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Need for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning Operation Aegis within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond in a timely manner and is deemed to have refused access. The delay by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command in providing records was found to be unacceptable. An order was issued for National Defence to provide a complete response within 60 business days, along with recommendations for process improvements and accountability for timely record retrieval.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit (subsection 7 ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access (subsection 10(3) ATIA)
• Unacceptable delay in retrieving responsive records from an Office of Primary Interest
• Need for improved departmental processes and accountability for timely record retrieval

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) improperly withheld records concerning the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion requirements, citing exemptions related to facilitating offenses, personal information, financial impact, negotiations, and advice/deliberations. While SSHRC successfully justified withholding some personal information under subsection 19(1) and advice/deliberations under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), it failed to demonstrate that other information met the criteria for exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d). The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered SSHRC to disclose the remaining information, which SSHRC agreed to implement.

• Exemption under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating commission of an offence)
• Exemption under subsection 19(1) (personal information)
• Exemption under paragraphs 20(1)(b), (c), (d) (third-party commercial/financial information, negotiations)
• Exemption under paragraphs 21(1)(a), (b) (advice, deliberations)