Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to the "Cedar LNG" export facility project. The investigation found that ECCC did not respond by the required date, attributing the delay to the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) and the ATIP office's failure to provide and process records in a timely manner. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered ECCC to issue interim responses for documents not requiring consultation and to provide a complete response by March 16, 2026. The Commissioner also recommended that ECCC develop processes to ensure timely record provision from OPIs and establish performance indicators for accountability. ECCC agreed to implement the orders and recommendations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Environment and Climate Change Canada responded to the access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay in responding constituted a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delays caused by Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) in providing records were acceptable
• Whether the proposed timeline for completing the review and consultations was reasonable

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under several sections of the Access to Information Act related to financial statements for the leaseback of seven specific buildings. The OIC investigated claims under paragraphs 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b). The complainant withdrew their allegation regarding subsection 19(1) and certain banking information. The OIC found that PSPC's arguments for withholding the information were largely speculative and lacked sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the exemptions claimed, particularly concerning the potential for material harm or interference with negotiations. The Commissioner concluded that PSPC could not demonstrate that it met all the requirements of the exemptions, especially given the public interest in transparency regarding significant public funds. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and PSPC was ordered to disclose most of the withheld information. PSPC subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.

• Whether s.18(d) government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual, was properly applied
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm government financial interests
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could materially harm the Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy
• Whether disclosure under s.18(d) could result in an individual or corporation receiving an undue benefit
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, was properly applied
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party, was properly applied
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(c) could injure the competitive position of the third party
• Whether s.20(1)(d) negotiations by a third party, was properly applied
• Whether a third party is or will be conducting contractual or other negotiations under s.20(1)(d)
• Whether disclosure under s.20(1)(d) could interfere with those negotiations
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations, was properly applied
• Whether the information is an account of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b)
• Whether the information reveals the nature of deliberations under s.21(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly refused to issue a new response letter after providing contextual information in its initial response to an access request. The request sought policy records, regulations, directives, orders, and instructions concerning the authority to generate Branch Standing Orders within the Canadian Armed Forces. DND's initial response stated that no responsive records were found but included additional information, such as hyperlinks to publicly available documents and an explanation using cautious language like "might," to assist the requester. The complainant argued this contextual information was speculative and not based on documented records, thus contravening DND's duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DND's inclusion of supplementary information, clearly distinguished from the official response, was an attempt to assist the requester in good faith and did not misrepresent the existence of records or create new ones. Therefore, DND was not obligated to issue a new response letter.

• Whether National Defence improperly refused to issue a new response letter
• Whether the inclusion of contextual information in a 'no records' response contravenes the duty to assist under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the contextual information was speculative and not grounded in documented records
• Whether the institution's response was complete and appropriate under subsection 10(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions concerning the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. The request covered records from July 8, 2022, to July 5, 2023. The investigation found that while the RCMP tasked relevant offices, these offices failed to search for records within the full specified timeframe. Specifically, Federal Policing and National Division did not search for records created after certain dates within the request's scope, and the Commissioner's Office's search timeframe was unclear. Furthermore, a 4600-page Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file, which the RCMP deemed irrelevant due to its 'occurrence time' being outside the request's timeframe, was found by the Commissioner to be relevant and to contain actions reported within the requested period. The Commissioner concluded that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search and ordered a new search and response. The RCMP agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether Federal Policing searched for records up to July 5, 2023
• Whether National Division searched for records created after May 29, 2023
• Whether the Commissioner's Office's search timeframe was adequate
• Whether the 4600-page PROS Occurrence Report was relevant to the request timeframe

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period mandated by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a Canadian Forces National Counter-Intelligence Unit (CFNCIU) document titled "Defining IMVE," dated November 8, 2018. DND received the request on March 10, 2025, making the response deadline April 9, 2025, but failed to respond by this date or to issue a valid extension. The investigation revealed that the delay was due to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), not providing the requested records to DND's Directorate Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP). The Commissioner found this delay unacceptable, especially given the document was estimated to be only six pages long. Consequently, DND was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days, and DND agreed to comply.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, constituting a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought "Report 002-18: The militia movement, the III%, and the threat to DND/CAF" and associated documents. The investigation confirmed that DND did not respond by the deadline of April 9, 2025, and had not extended the timeline. The delay was attributed to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), which had not yet retrieved the records despite estimating only 13 pages. The Information Commissioner found this delay unacceptable and emphasized the collective responsibility of all DND personnel to respect access rights. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request concerning communications between Transport Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) related to Class D operation with a single engine helicopter. Initially, Transport Canada located only two pages. During the OIC's investigation, Transport Canada conducted additional searches, identifying approximately 690 more responsive pages. While the institution argued that consultations with the RCMP would take at least six months, the Commissioner found that a reasonable search had ultimately been conducted. However, the Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to process these additional records and provide a new response to the complainant within 60 business days, emphasizing that the institution bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring consultations do not unduly delay access. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Transport Canada conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the consultation process with the RCMP unduly delayed access

The OPC investigated a complaint against Google regarding its search engine displaying outdated media articles about the Complainant's HIV status and a stayed criminal charge when their name was searched. The Complainant alleged these articles caused significant harm, including physical assault and lost employment, and sought their de-listing from name-based search results. The OPC's jurisdiction over Google's search engine under PIPEDA was affirmed by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, rejecting Google's claims of non-commercial activity and journalistic exemption. The OPC found Google did not contravene Principle 4.6 (accuracy), as its responsibility was for the search results accurately reflecting linked content, not the content itself. However, the OPC concluded that Google contravened subsection 5(3) (appropriate purposes), determining that the significant harms to the Complainant's safety and dignity outweighed the limited public interest in the articles remaining linked to their name. The OPC recommended Google de-list the articles from searches for the Complainant's name, balancing privacy rights with freedom of expression. Google declined to implement this recommendation, stating it required further court guidance on the "right to de-listing" and Charter implications. Consequently, the complaint was found well-founded and unresolved regarding subsection 5(3), and not well-founded for the accuracy issue.

• Whether PIPEDA applies to Google's search engine service as a commercial activity within the meaning of paragraph 4(1)(a) of PIPEDA
• Whether the operation of Google’s search engine service is excluded from the application of Part 1 of PIPEDA by virtue of paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA because it involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and for no other purpose
• Whether Google is contravening Accuracy requirements under Principle 4.6 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA by continuing to display the search results in response to searches for the Complainant’s name
• Whether Google is contravening subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA by continuing to display the search results in response to searches for the Complainant’s name, considering whether the purposes are appropriate in the circumstances
• Whether the accessibility of information in response to a search for the Complainant's name causes significant harm to the Complainant
• Whether the significant harm to the Complainant outweighs the public interest in the search results remaining available through Google's search engine by searching the Complainant's name
• Whether Google collected, used, or disclosed personal information without consent under Principles 4.3.4 and 4.3.8 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA (OPC declined to address)

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) improperly withheld the number of paid subscribers to its Gem streaming service under section 68.1 and paragraph 18(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that while the information related to CBC's programming activities, it also related to its general administration, thereby engaging the exception to the section 68.1 exclusion. Consequently, section 68.1 did not apply. Regarding paragraph 18(b), the Commissioner determined that CBC failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its competitive position or interference with negotiations, beyond a mere possibility. The Commissioner concluded that neither exemption applied and ordered CBC to disclose the information. CBC, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order, leading to a well-founded complaint.

• Whether the information relates to CBC's journalistic, creative or programming activities under s.68.1 ATIA
• Whether the information relates to CBC's general administration, engaging the exception to s.68.1 ATIA
• Whether s.68.1 ATIA applies when information relates to both programming activities and general administration
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm CBC's competitive position under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with CBC's negotiations under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether the CRTC's non-publication of subscriber figures supports CBC's claim of harm under s.18(b) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought emails to and from the Warden at Millhaven Institution related to COVID-19 and Structured Intervention Units. The investigation confirmed that some withheld information, such as names and contact details of staff and offenders for contact tracing, performance appraisals, and criminal history, met the requirements of subsection 19(1). However, the Commissioner found that other information, including dates of last and next shifts for CX and healthcare staff, names of individuals in an email discussing performance ratings, all information on page 77, and the type of incidents in situation reports, did not meet the criteria for personal information under subsection 19(1). CSC's exercise of discretion under subsection 19(2) was deemed reasonable as the circumstances for disclosure were not met. The Commissioner ordered CSC to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), and CSC agreed to implement the order. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether names and contact information of staff and offenders for COVID-19 contact tracing constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether performance appraisals constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether information related to intra-regional transfers constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether names, birthdates, and FPS numbers of offenders constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether details regarding an offender’s criminal history constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether dates of last shift and next shift for CX and healthcare staff constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether dates of last shift and next shift for MAI and unit CM staff constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether names of individuals in an email discussing proposed rating changes constitute personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether information on page 77 constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the type of incident in situation reports constitutes personal information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether CSC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA to disclose information

The complainant requested a land claim settlement agreement signed in 2000 between the federal government and the Squamish band. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) initially withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, CIRNAC dropped its reliance on paragraph 20(1)(b) but continued to claim paragraph 20(1)(c) and section 23. The Information Commissioner found that neither CIRNAC nor the third party (Squamish Nation) provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm for paragraph 20(1)(c) or that litigation privilege applied under section 23, particularly as the litigation cited was unrelated and commenced much later than the agreement. The Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety. CIRNAC notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order, citing potential adverse impacts on its relationship with the Squamish Nation and its ability to conduct confidential negotiations.

• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third party information applied
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party was reasonably expected
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied
• Whether the information was prepared or gathered for the dominant purpose of litigation
• Whether the cited litigation was related to the settlement agreement for the purpose of litigation privilege
• Whether litigation privilege had expired or was waived

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, seeking approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued the request was vexatious, made to seek retribution, bully, or circumvent an investigation, citing the requester's prior communications, refusal to narrow the request, and the timing and content of the request. The access request sought all emails, Teams messages, and iMessages from three ATIP office employees over a three-day period, regardless of subject matter. The Commissioner found that the institution did not establish that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner interpreted the requester's communications as indicating an intent to file an OIC complaint, not to bully or seek retribution, and found the refusal to narrow the scope plausible given the requester's stated interest in the ATIP office's deliberations. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the requester's email stating 'further action will be taken' indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the requester's refusal to narrow the scope of the request indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the requester's email stating intent to contact the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the content of the access request (seeking emails of ATIP employees) indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the timing of the access request indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether there was a conflict of interest in the institution's application

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for correspondence between a named subject matter expert and specific parties on 10 topics. The OIC investigation found that CRA's initial search was deficient, as the complainant provided evidence suggesting additional records should exist. Although CRA provided explanations for some missing records, the OIC concluded that the initial search was not reasonable. Consequently, CRA conducted a second search and confirmed the existence of further responsive records. The Commissioner ordered CRA to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a new response within 60 business days. The complaint was found to be well founded, and CRA agreed to implement the order.

• Whether Canada Revenue Agency conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for a 13-point list of specific record categories held by a named subject matter expert. The OIC investigation found that CRA's initial search was deficient, as evidence from the complainant indicated the likely existence of additional responsive records. Following the OIC's intervention, CRA conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records existed. The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded because the initial search was unreasonable. The Commissioner ordered CRA to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a supplementary response within 60 business days, granting access unless specific exemptions applied. CRA notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether Canada Revenue Agency conducted a reasonable search for records under s.30(1)(a) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1) and 18.1(1), and paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, and also failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to changes in Iqaluit's mailing service. During the investigation, Canada Post disclosed some information previously withheld under these provisions and the complainant narrowed the focus to financial information withheld under subsection 18.1(1) and the reasonable search allegation. The Commissioner found that Canada Post failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding information under subsection 18.1(1), particularly regarding whether it constituted a trade secret or fell under the general administration exception of subsection 18.1(2). Furthermore, Canada Post did not provide adequate representations to demonstrate that a reasonable search for records had been conducted. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information on pages 175-182 and to conduct a new search for responsive records. Canada Post notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information was properly withheld
• Whether s.18.1(1) trade secrets of Canada Post were properly withheld
• Whether s.18.1(1) confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post was properly withheld
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations were properly withheld
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations were properly withheld
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 constitutes a trade secret under s.18.1(1)
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 constitutes financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.18.1(1)
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 relates to the general administration of Canada Post under s.18.1(2)
• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records