Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant, as executor of a deceased individual's estate, requested personal information from the Department of National Defence (DND). DND refused to disclose most information, citing Privacy Act exemptions and arguing the request didn't meet the criteria for accessing information on behalf of a deceased person. The OPC found that the complainant was entitled to make the request for estate administration purposes and that DND failed to conduct an adequate search. DND agreed to conduct searches and provide a new response, leading to the complaint being conditionally resolved.

• Eligibility of an estate executor to request personal information of a deceased individual.
• Proper application of section 26 of the Privacy Act (disclosure of personal information about others).
• Adequacy of DND's search for requested records.
• DND's obligation to process formal access requests even if informal avenues exist.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit required by the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to specific committees. The investigation found that CSE did not respond by the deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. CSE cited processing delays, extensive consultations with other institutions, and staffing issues for the significant delay. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CSE to respond within 72 business days, but CSE indicated it would seek judicial review.

• Failure to respond to access request within statutory time limits.
• Delay in processing and consulting with other institutions.
• Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed response date.
• The institution's decision to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's order.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search for emails related to a specific CSIS brief concerning foreign interference. The investigation found that PCO's initial search was inadequate, as additional relevant records were discovered during a second search, including 11 pages of emails. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a new response to the access request.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Failure to retrieve all responsive records.

The complainant alleged that the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the mandatory 30-day timeframe. The request sought records related to a previous access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that CSE did not respond by the deadline, leading to a deemed refusal of access. The delay was attributed to unresponsiveness from internal offices responsible for retrieving records. The Commissioner ordered CSE to provide a response to the access request within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day statutory period
• Deemed refusal of access due to delay
• Impact of internal office unresponsiveness on meeting access obligations

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day limit required by the Access to Information Act. The request was for specific files related to the Assessment Review Group. The investigation found that CSE did not respond by the due date and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to slow record review and consultation processes. The Information Commissioner ordered CSE to respond within 72 business days.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (section 7 of ATIA)
• Deemed refusal of access due to delay (subsection 10(3) of ATIA)
• Unacceptable delay in processing access requests
• CSE's decision not to implement the Commissioner's order and to seek judicial review

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day time limit. The request sought information on flights of Canadian government-owned planes landing in Lebanon. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access. The delay was attributed to unresponsiveness from internal offices. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limit (section 7 ATIA).
• Deemed refusal of access due to non-response (subsection 10(3) ATIA).
• Impact of internal delays on meeting access to information obligations.
• Responsibility of the institution to ensure timely responses.

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a significant increase in access requests for immigration information and a rise in delay complaints. The investigation found that CBSA is overwhelmed by these requests because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has not implemented an effective system for clients to retrieve their own immigration application information. This has caused a spillover effect, increasing CBSA's workload. The Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to address the issue, and CBSA has committed to implementing them.

• High volume of access requests for immigration application information made to CBSA.
• Increase in delay complaints against CBSA.
• Lack of an effective system for clients to retrieve immigration application information directly from IRCC.
• Impact of IRCC's delays on CBSA's ATIP unit workload.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information about grants and contributions under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED failed to demonstrate that disclosing the assistance type for certain projects would reasonably be expected to harm ongoing negotiations or contractual matters. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered ISED to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 18(b).

• Application of paragraph 18(b) of the ATIA regarding negotiations by government institutions.
• Burden of proof on the institution to demonstrate harm from disclosure.
• Reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations from releasing assistance type for grants and contributions.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a hiring process within the legislated 30-day period. The investigation found that DND did not meet the deadline, and the delay was caused by the unresponsiveness of an internal office. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to respond to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response
• Consequences of not responding within the prescribed time limit