Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to masks, requested under the Access to Information Act. PHAC initially stated no records existed as an employee deleted their entire email mailbox. During the investigation, PHAC conducted additional searches and found responsive records. The Commissioner found the complaints to be well-founded due to the initial inadequate search.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Disposition of electronic records by an employee
• Institution's obligation to search beyond the employee's direct records
• Information management practices of the institution

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada's 240-day extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for correspondence between Public Safety and the RCMP in May 2022. Public Safety could not justify the lengthy extension, as the volume of records was not large and the RCMP's consultation timeline was based on service standards rather than record complexity. The Information Commissioner found the extension invalid, deeming the delay a refusal of access.

• Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA
• Definition of 'large number of records' under paragraph 9(1)(a)
• Justification for consultation delays under paragraph 9(1)(b)
• Timeliness of institution's response

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the procurement of new handguns for the military within the 30-day time limit. PSPC did not respond by the due date of July 5, 2021, and cited backlogs, operational challenges, and staffing issues for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, noting that these reasons do not absolve PSPC of its statutory obligation.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Effect of operational challenges and staffing shortages on statutory obligations
• Definition of a "response" under the Act

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day timeframe. DND refused to process the request, believing it did not meet the clarity requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the request did meet the requirements and that DND should have processed it without clarification. DND was therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response to the request, and DND indicated it would comply.

• Whether the access request met the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act.
• Whether National Defence properly refused to process the access request.
• Whether National Defence failed to respond within the time limits set out in the Act.

The complainant alleged that CSIS failed to sufficiently identify which portions of the requested records were redacted and on what basis. CSIS used negative redactions and did not specify exemptions on the records themselves, claiming it could cause harm. The Information Commissioner found this insufficient, recommending CSIS provide a new response clearly identifying withheld portions and citing specific exemptions, cease using negative redactions, and cite exemptions on the records themselves. CSIS agreed to implement these recommendations.

• Adequacy of identification of redacted portions and grounds for withholding.
• Propriety of using negative redactions.
• Requirement to cite exemptions on the records themselves versus in response letters.
• CSIS's obligation to assist the requester.

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The investigation found that the institution misinterpreted the request and relied too heavily on a keyword search. An additional search was ordered, which located 11 pages of previously unreleased records. National Defence has stated it will comply with the order to release these records.

• Reasonableness of search
• Interpretation of access request
• Use of keyword search