Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) improperly withheld records related to Taseko Mines Limited’s New Prosperity Project under several exemptions in the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that ECCC failed to demonstrate that information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) met the exemption criteria, and that certain information claimed under section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) did not qualify. ECCC has agreed to comply with the order to disclose the specified information. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d) interfered with third-party negotiations
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a) constituted advice or recommendations
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(b) constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations
• Whether information withheld under section 23 met the criteria for solicitor-client or litigation privilege

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld records concerning the negotiation of a 1991 lease under section 23 of the Access to Information Act, citing solicitor-client and litigation privilege. PSPC applied these exemptions broadly to 96,781 pages of records. The Information Commissioner found that while some information qualified for solicitor-client privilege, PSPC failed to demonstrate that any information met the criteria for litigation privilege. Furthermore, PSPC did not reasonably exercise its discretion in withholding information and failed to perform severance as required by section 25.

• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Application of section 25 (severance)
• Reasonableness of the institution's exercise of discretion
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions

This investigation examined allegations that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) inappropriately disclosed an adopted child's adoptive name, and the adoptive mother's personal information, to the child's biological mother. The OPC found that, on the balance of probabilities, the CRA likely disclosed the child's adoptive name, contravening section 8 of the Privacy Act. Deficiencies were also identified in the CRA's internal procedures for safeguarding adopted children's personal information. The complaint was found to be well-founded but not resolved, as the CRA agreed to implement some, but not all, of the OPC's recommendations.

• Whether the CRA disclosed the child's adoptive name and the adoptive mother's personal information to the biological mother without consent.
• Whether the CRA's internal procedures adequately protected the personal information of adopted children.
• Whether the CRA's actions contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the complaint was resolved based on the CRA's response to the OPC's recommendations.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search for Microsoft Teams messages related to ArriveCAN. CBSA's policy retains these messages for only 30 days, but an administrative error delayed the processing of the request beyond this period, leading officials to believe no records existed. Although CBSA later found one relevant record in its corporate repositories during the investigation, the initial delay meant a reasonable search was not conducted at the time of the request. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Timeliness of request processing
• Impact of administrative errors on the right of access
• Proper retention and retrieval of electronic records

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly denied access to personal information related to five grievances, relying on exceptions under the Privacy Act. The OPC found that while the CRA conducted reasonable searches, it failed to adequately substantiate its use of paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Act to withhold information. Much of the withheld information was transactional and did not demonstrate a clear risk of harm upon disclosure. The complaint was found to be well-founded, but unresolved, as the CRA maintained its position on the withheld information.

• Proper application of paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act regarding risk of harm.
• Adequacy of government institution's searches for responsive records.
• Substantiation of claims for withholding information under statutory exemptions.
• Requirement for case-by-case assessment when applying exemptions.