Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) improperly withheld information regarding equipment leases under several exemptions, including financial and commercial information, and that PAPA did not conduct a reasonable search. The Information Commissioner found that PAPA failed to demonstrate that the rental rate information met the requirements for the financial impact exemption (paragraph 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner was satisfied that PAPA conducted a reasonable search for records. PAPA was ordered to disclose the redacted rental rate information.

• Whether the withheld rental rate information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the institution properly applied exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that the National Research Council Canada (NRC) improperly withheld information concerning negotiations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) regarding overtime conversion. The NRC claimed exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that the NRC failed to meet the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(c) for most of the withheld information, but upheld the exemption under section 23 for specific legal advice. The Commissioner ordered the release of the information improperly withheld under the other provisions. The NRC has indicated it will implement the order.

• Whether information concerning negotiations with a third party was properly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d).
• Whether information constituted advice or recommendations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a).
• Whether information constituted positions or plans for negotiations improperly withheld under paragraph 21(1)(c).
• Whether information was subject to solicitor-client privilege under section 23.

An institution applied under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act for approval to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they constituted an abuse of the right to request information. The institution claimed the requests would overburden its operations, were repetitive, and intended to gain an advantage in legal proceedings. The Information Commissioner denied the application, finding the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. The Commissioner noted the broad scope of the requests but concluded the institution failed to demonstrate they were an abuse of the Act.

• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access by overburdening the institution.
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access due to their repetitive nature.
• Whether the purpose of the access requests was other than obtaining documents or information.
• Sufficiency of evidence provided by the institution regarding the estimated volume of records and operational impact.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The records concerned data analyzed in a Sea Lice Science Response Report. Neither DFO nor the third parties could demonstrate that the information met the requirements for the exemption, including objectivity or that it was supplied by a third party. A section 26 exemption was also considered and dismissed. The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to fully disclose the records.

• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party.
• Whether the withheld information met the requirements of section 26 of the ATIA (information to be published).

This investigation examined complaints regarding the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's (NSIRA) Secretariat's request for access to polygraph records as part of a review of the Communications Security Establishment. The OPC found that the anonymization measures significantly reduced re-identification risks, and the polygraph recordings themselves contained no personal information. However, concerns were raised about the timeliness of the Secretariat's requests to Treasury Board Secretariat for approval of Personal Information Banks (PIBs). The collection issue was found not well-founded, but the timeliness of PIB updates was found well-founded and subsequently resolved.

• Whether the NSIRA Secretariat collected personal information without a direct relationship to its operating programs or activities.
• Whether the NSIRA Secretariat complied with its obligations to include all personal information under its control in Personal Information Banks (PIBs).
• Assessment of privacy mitigation measures implemented by CSE to anonymize polygraph records.
• Timeliness of the NSIRA Secretariat's requests for PIB approvals and publication of its Info Source page.

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld records from an inmate's file, citing several provisions of the Access to Information Act, primarily subsection 19(1) concerning personal information. The investigation focused on whether CSC met the requirements for withholding personal information and if it reasonably exercised its discretion in denying access. The Commissioner found that the records contained sensitive personal information and that CSC had met the requirements of subsection 19(1). Furthermore, CSC reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding not to disclose the information, as the public interest in disclosure did not clearly outweigh the invasion of privacy. Consequently, the complaint was found not to be well-founded.

• Whether the records constituted personal information under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether CSC met the requirements for withholding personal information under subsection 19(1).
• Whether CSC reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 19(2) regarding consent, public availability, and public interest in disclosure.
• Whether constitutional principles related to transparency and openness of judicial proceedings applied to the Parole Board of Canada.