Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit. The request concerned specific documents related to past litigation. The investigation found that CIRNAC did not respond by the deadline and was therefore deemed to have refused access. The Commissioner found the delay by the Resolution & Partnerships unit in retrieving records unacceptable and ordered CIRNAC to provide a response to the request within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit
• Delay in retrieving records by an Office of Primary Interest (OPI)
• Definition of a 'response' under the Act

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the funding and fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations from the Deputy Minister's Office. The investigation revealed deficiencies in CIRNAC's search efforts, indicating that not all likely locations for records were searched. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CIRNAC to conduct a new search and provide a response to the complainant.

• Definition of a reasonable search
• Completeness of search efforts across different sectors
• Accessibility of records due to system changes
• Evidence of record existence despite limited disclosure

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to companies that worked on the ArriveCAN application. Specifically, the complainant questioned the absence of text messages in the provided records. The OIC investigated CBSA's search process and policies regarding text message management. The Information Commissioner concluded that CBSA's search was reasonable, as text messages are often considered transitory and are not retained if business value is captured in other formats, aligning with Treasury Board Secretariat guidance. Therefore, the complaint was found not to be well founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the CBSA
• Whether text messages related to the ArriveCAN application were properly searched for and provided
• CBSA's policies and practices regarding the management of transitory records, including text messages

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period. The request concerned records referenced in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Despite Health Canada receiving over 20,000 pages of responsive records and needing to conduct consultations, the Information Commissioner found their proposed response date of July 17, 2030, to be unreasonable given the significant delays already incurred. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to provide a complete response by April 7, 2026.

• Timeliness of response to access request
• Reasonableness of proposed response date
• Impact of record volume and consultations on processing time
• Definition of a complete response

The complainant requested his minor child's passport application from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), citing a court order granting him access to his children's information. IRCC denied the request, stating the child's consent was required. The OPC found that while the complainant had legal authorization to act on his child's behalf, the request was not made for the child's benefit or best interests, a key condition under the Privacy Regulations. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the complainant did not have a right of access to the child's personal information.

• Whether a parent has an automatic right of access to a minor child's personal information under the Privacy Act.
• Interpretation of the Privacy Regulations regarding requests made on behalf of a minor.
• Whether the complainant's request served the child's best interests.
• The decision-making capacity of a minor regarding their personal information.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under the Access to Information Act's personal information exemption and failed to conduct a reasonable search. DND conceded it had not always properly applied the exemption and provided supplementary disclosure. The Information Commissioner found that while the remaining withheld information met the exemption criteria, DND's initial search was not reasonable as it failed to pursue all avenues to locate responsive records, including those lost due to poor information management practices. The Commissioner recommended improved training on information management.

• Proper application of the personal information exemption (section 19(1) ATIA)
• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Adequacy of information management practices
• Burden of proof for withholding information