Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request by the extended due date, concerning government communications about former House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota's recognition of Yaroslav Hunka. PCO had extended the response period by 360 days, making the due date April 7, 2025, but failed to respond by this date. The Commissioner found that PCO did not meet its obligation to respond within the extended period, deeming it to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. Despite PCO indicating that records had been reviewed and consultations completed, and proposing an anticipated response deadline of October 24, 2025, this deadline was also not met. The Commissioner concluded that the delay was unacceptable and in contravention of PCO's obligations. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Whether the institution responded within the time limits required by section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether the institution's extension under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA was properly applied and adhered to
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA due to failure to respond

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought all Microsoft Teams messages from EX-1 level employees and above, along with Teams usage policies and activity reports, for a specific timeframe. The institution claimed the request would be "operationally catastrophic" due to the estimated volume of messages and its limited ATIP capacity. However, the Commissioner found the institution's evidence, particularly its estimation of message volume based on a global report rather than actual Teams data, to be unreliable and inflated. The Commissioner also noted that the institution's limited ATIP capacity, while acknowledged, does not automatically render a request abusive. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the institution's estimate of responsive records was reliable
• Whether the institution's ATIP capacity limitations justify declining to act on the request

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) improperly withheld information from a Gartner, Inc. report on cloud economics under various sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, SSC claimed exemptions under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d), later dropping 19(1) and 20(1)(d) but adding 16(2). Gartner also asserted exemptions under 20(1)(a) and 68(a). The Commissioner found that while some information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), much of the claimed information did not, including administrative details and government-supplied data. The Commissioner also concluded that SSC failed to properly exercise discretion for information withheld under subsection 16(2) and did not establish that paragraphs 20(1)(a) or 20(1)(c) applied. Furthermore, SSC failed to adhere to severance requirements under section 25. The complaint was found to be well founded, and SSC was ordered to re-exercise discretion for the subsection 16(2) claim and disclose specific portions of the report.

• Whether the complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act
• Whether subsection 19(1) (personal information) applied to the information
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) applied to the information
• Whether subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) applied to the security measures on page 134
• Whether Shared Services Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 16(2)
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets) applied to the information
• Whether the information was a "plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound" under paragraph 20(1)(a)
• Whether the information was "secret" under paragraph 20(1)(a)
• Whether the third party intended to treat the information as secret under paragraph 20(1)(a)
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to the information
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (not available from other sources)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (reasonable expectation of non-disclosure)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) (relationship fostered for public benefit)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b)
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) applied to the information
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party under paragraph 20(1)(c)
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of the third party under paragraph 20(1)(c)
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm well beyond a mere possibility under paragraph 20(1)(c)
• Whether section 25 (severance) was properly applied by Shared Services Canada
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to administrative details
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to introductory slides
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to engagement objectives
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to section title slides
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to table of contents
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to government information
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to file names and icons
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to project-specific advice paid for by the government
• Whether paragraph 20(1)(b) applied to application names and descriptions

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada failed to respond to an access request within the extended time limit under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to human activity and coastal erosion impacts on culturally significant areas within Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, and records leading to the park's closure decision. Parks Canada received the request on May 5, 2025, and extended the response period to October 27, 2025, but failed to respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3). The institution attributed the delay to staffing shortages, technical issues with redaction software, and the need for extensive third-party consultations, particularly with First Nations due to the sensitive nature of the records. The Commissioner found the technical delays unacceptable and emphasized that staffing issues and competing priorities do not justify delays under the Act. Parks Canada committed to providing a partial response by February 27, 2026, and a complete response by April 30, 2026. The Commissioner ordered Parks Canada to provide a complete response by April 30, 2026, which the institution agreed to implement.

• Whether Parks Canada responded to the access request within the extended time limit under subsection 9(1) of the ATIA
• Whether technical issues with redaction software justify delay in responding to an access request
• Whether staffing shortages and heavy workload justify delay in responding to an access request
• Whether the need for third-party consultations justifies delay in responding to an access request

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) 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 parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, agreements between manufacturers and the Government of Canada, and the use of foreign workers in these facilities. ISED had extended the response deadline by 300 days, but failed to meet it, primarily due to a lack of responsiveness from its Industry Sector. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and noted that the complainant had been waiting almost 18 months for a response. The Commissioner ordered ISED to provide a complete response within 60 business days of the final report. ISED indicated its intention to comply with the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended time limits under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, related to submissions for using Anafranil / Altius Clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope of the complaint to specific pages and no longer pursued the personal information exemption. Both Health Canada and the third party, AA Pharma Inc., declined to provide detailed representations to support the exemptions, stating that due to the passage of time, the exemptions no longer applied. The Information Commissioner found that the institution and third party failed to demonstrate that the exemptions were still applicable. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the information. Health Canada notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(a) ATIA (third-party trade secrets)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to commercial fishing agreements with Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) from 2000 to 2020, citing exemptions under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that DFO correctly applied subsection 19(1) to personal information that remained after some signatures were voluntarily disclosed. However, for much of the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), DFO and EFN failed to demonstrate that it was objectively confidential, supplied by a third party, or consistently treated as confidential, leading to its rejection for many portions. The Commissioner upheld paragraph 20(1)(b) for specific financial details like EFN contribution amounts, salary information, activity costs, and supplier quotes. Furthermore, the Commissioner rejected the application of paragraph 20(1)(c), concluding that the alleged financial harm or competitive injury was speculative and lacked concrete evidence. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded. DFO was ordered to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), and the institution agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the information met the definition of "personal information" under s.19(1) ATIA.
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA regarding personal information.
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific, or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was not otherwise available from public sources (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the information originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation of confidence (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the relationship between the government and third party would be fostered for public benefit by keeping the information confidential (sub-criterion of confidentiality).
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm a third party's competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether the alleged harm under s.20(1)(c) ATIA was well beyond a mere possibility or speculative.