Updated daily · 21,367 recordsSign in
The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

1,623 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 7, 20245823-04427

Global Affairs Canada, 5823-04427

The OIC ordered Global Affairs Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the receipt of this final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Global Affairs Canada, 5823-04427

Aug 7, 20245823-04427

The OIC ordered Global Affairs Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the receipt of this final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Department of Justice, 5821-04184

Aug 7, 20245821-04184

OIC order issued to Department of Justice.

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 6, 20245822-03179

Department of Justice Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 53

Department of Justice Canada

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit. The complainant also alleged that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to meet its obligations to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to assist the complainant. Justice also failed to respond within the time limit, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner ordered Justice to remove the hold, provide a complete response by May 17, 2029, and provide regular updates and interim releases.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

Department of Justice Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 53

Aug 6, 20245822-03179
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limit. The complainant also alleged that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to meet its obligations to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that Justice improperly placed the request on hold and failed to assist the complainant. Justice also failed to respond within the time limit, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner ordered Justice to remove the hold, provide a complete response by May 17, 2029, and provide regular updates and interim releases.

Key Issues
  • Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (s. 7 ATIA)
  • Improperly placing an access request on hold
  • Failure to meet obligations to assist the requester (s. 4(2.1) ATIA)
  • Deemed refusal of access (s. 10(3) ATIA)
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 6, 20245823-01054

A-2022-02160 — National Defence

National Defence

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documentation related to unidentified objects shot down over Yukon and Lake Huron in February 2023. The Information Commissioner found that DND did not meet its response deadline and is deemed to have refused access. An order was issued requiring DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

A-2022-02160 — National Defence

Aug 6, 20245823-01054
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request concerned documentation related to unidentified objects shot down over Yukon and Lake Huron in February 2023. The Information Commissioner found that DND did not meet its response deadline and is deemed to have refused access. An order was issued requiring DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

Key Issues
  • Failure to respond to an access request within the legislated time limit.
  • DND's reliance on internal offices (RCAF and CFINTCOM) for responsive records.
  • The interpretation of 'response' under the Access to Information Act.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 1, 20245823-04426

5823-04426 — Canada Revenue Agency

Canada Revenue Agency

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning House of Commons committee studies related to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation within the extended time limit. The CRA acknowledged significant delays due to a backlog of records from one of its Offices of Primary Interest. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the CRA to provide a complete response by January 8, 2025. Recommendations were also made for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-04426 — Canada Revenue Agency

Aug 1, 20245823-04426
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning House of Commons committee studies related to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation within the extended time limit. The CRA acknowledged significant delays due to a backlog of records from one of its Offices of Primary Interest. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the CRA to provide a complete response by January 8, 2025. Recommendations were also made for improved internal processes and accountability for timely record provision.

Key Issues
  • Failure to respond within the statutory time limit.
  • Delays caused by internal OPI record retrieval.
  • Need for improved CRA internal processes for ATIP compliance.
  • Accountability for delays in providing responsive records.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 1, 20245823-02811

Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 49

Public Services and Procurement Canada

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for materials related to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped this request with others to justify the extension. While the investigation found no improper regrouping, it determined that PSPC failed to justify the 768-day extension for processing the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 49

Aug 1, 20245823-02811
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for materials related to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped this request with others to justify the extension. While the investigation found no improper regrouping, it determined that PSPC failed to justify the 768-day extension for processing the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
  • Improper regrouping of access requests under paragraph 30(1)(f)
  • Timeliness of response to access request
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Granted (refusal authorized)
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 1, 20242024 OIC 64

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 64

A federal institution

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, an abuse of the right to request, and made in bad faith. The Commissioner agreed that the request was vexatious. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

Quick view

Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Granted (refusal authorized)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 64

Aug 1, 20242024 OIC 64
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, an abuse of the right to request, and made in bad faith. The Commissioner agreed that the request was vexatious. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

Key Issues
  • Whether the access request was vexatious
  • Whether the access request was an abuse of the right to make a request
  • Whether the access request was made in bad faith
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 30, 20245823-01224

National Defence, 5823-01224

The OIC ordered National Defence to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

National Defence, 5823-01224

Jul 30, 20245823-01224

The OIC ordered National Defence to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report..

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 30, 20245823-02458

5823-02458 — National Defence

National Defence

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for specific reports and recommendations within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the extended deadline and is therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to complete the retrieval and provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-02458 — National Defence

Jul 30, 20245823-02458
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for specific reports and recommendations within the 30-day timeframe required by the Access to Information Act. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the extended deadline and is therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner ordered DND to complete the retrieval and provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

Key Issues
  • Timeliness of response to an access request
  • Definition of a "response" under the Act
  • Consequences of failing to respond within the statutory time limits
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 26, 20245823-04301

Public Health Agency of Canada, 5823-04301

The OIC ordered Public Health Agency of Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days after the date of the final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Public Health Agency of Canada, 5823-04301

Jul 26, 20245823-04301

The OIC ordered Public Health Agency of Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days after the date of the final report..

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 26, 20245823-04301

5823-04301 — Public Health Agency of Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a specific standing offer. PHAC claimed an extension of 255 days due to the volume of records, citing a need for 180 days under paragraph 9(1)(a). The Commissioner found that PHAC failed to demonstrate that the 180-day extension was reasonable, as it did not show sufficient rigour in calculating the time needed. Consequently, the extension was deemed invalid, and PHAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-04301 — Public Health Agency of Canada

Jul 26, 20245823-04301
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a specific standing offer. PHAC claimed an extension of 255 days due to the volume of records, citing a need for 180 days under paragraph 9(1)(a). The Commissioner found that PHAC failed to demonstrate that the 180-day extension was reasonable, as it did not show sufficient rigour in calculating the time needed. Consequently, the extension was deemed invalid, and PHAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1)(a)
  • Definition of a 'large number of records'
  • Adequacy of justification for processing time
  • Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3)
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 25, 20245823-04357

Environment and Climate Change Canada, 5823-04357

The OIC ordered Environment and Climate Change Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day after receipt of the final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Environment and Climate Change Canada, 5823-04357

Jul 25, 20245823-04357

The OIC ordered Environment and Climate Change Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day after receipt of the final report..

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 24, 20245823-03806

Global Affairs Canada, 5823-03806

The OIC ordered Global Affairs Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following the receipt of my final report..

Quick view

Access to Information ActOIC Order (ATIA s.36.1, binding)

Global Affairs Canada, 5823-03806

Jul 24, 20245823-03806

The OIC ordered Global Affairs Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following the receipt of my final report..

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 24, 20245819-00040

5819-00040 — Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) improperly withheld information related to payment requests from Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG). The request sought official documents from January 2016 to March 2019. While the complainant later narrowed the complaint, the investigation focused on exemptions related to third-party financial information and disclosure restrictions. The Commissioner found that only information concerning pricing and contractual relationships met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5819-00040 — Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada

Jul 24, 20245819-00040
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) improperly withheld information related to payment requests from Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG). The request sought official documents from January 2016 to March 2019. While the complainant later narrowed the complaint, the investigation focused on exemptions related to third-party financial information and disclosure restrictions. The Commissioner found that only information concerning pricing and contractual relationships met the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c).

Key Issues
  • Application of section 20(1)(c) regarding financial impact on a third party.
  • Application of section 20(1)(b) regarding confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information.
  • Application of section 24(1) regarding disclosure restricted by another law.
  • Burden of proof for third-party exemptions.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 22, 20245822-06573

5822-06573 — National Defence

National Defence

The complainant alleged that the time National Defence (DND) took to respond to an access request regarding military equipment sent to Ukraine was unreasonable. The OIC found that DND did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension. DND was deemed to have refused access. Following discussions facilitated by the OIC, the complainant narrowed the scope of the request, and DND then estimated a six-month response time. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response by November 25, 2024.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5822-06573 — National Defence

Jul 22, 20245822-06573
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the time National Defence (DND) took to respond to an access request regarding military equipment sent to Ukraine was unreasonable. The OIC found that DND did not meet the requirements for a valid time extension. DND was deemed to have refused access. Following discussions facilitated by the OIC, the complainant narrowed the scope of the request, and DND then estimated a six-month response time. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response by November 25, 2024.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA.
  • Whether DND met the requirements for a time extension due to volume of records under paragraph 9(1)(a).
  • Deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) due to failure to respond within the extended period.
  • Impact of narrowing the request on the response timeline.