Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records related to an application by Ridley Terminals Inc. for a berth expansion project. The information was withheld under exemptions related to personal information, confidential third-party commercial or technical information, and financial impact on a third party. The Information Commissioner found that DFO did not meet the requirements for withholding information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), but did meet the requirements for subsection 19(1) regarding personal information. DFO was ordered to disclose all information except for the personal information.

• Whether information qualifies as personal information under s. 19(1) ATIA.
• Whether information qualifies as confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information under s. 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether information could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under s. 20(1)(c) ATIA.
• Whether information could reasonably be expected to interfere with the contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s. 20(1)(d) ATIA.

An institution applied for approval to decline acting on a 42-page, 196-item access request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access. The institution had split the request into 196 separate requests without the requester's consent, leading the Commissioner to consider the application for the entire request. The Commissioner found that the breadth and complexity of the request placed an unreasonable burden on the institution, constituting an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also found the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was granted.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access
• Whether the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester
• Whether the modifications made by the requester after the application were timely
• Procedural fairness of the OIC's process

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada improperly withheld information related to user agreements for the national public alerting system, citing personal information and third-party emergency management plans. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the need to investigate the personal information aspect. The Commissioner found that the agreements did not meet the criteria for third-party emergency management plans because they constituted negotiated terms rather than information supplied by a third party. The Commissioner also found that the institution's invocation of the exemption for facilitating an offence was not justified.

• Whether the information was 'supplied...by a third party' for the purposes of paragraph 20(1)(b.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the information meets the criteria for third-party emergency management plans under paragraph 20(1)(b.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the disclosure of a DocuSign envelope identification number could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection 16(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld contract information related to the aggregate extraction operation on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA) under exemptions related to third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and negotiations. The contract was between the OIAA and Thomas Cavanagh Construction Limited. The Information Commissioner found that while some information met the exemption criteria, much of it did not, particularly regarding confidentiality and the necessity of withholding. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose certain portions of the contract.

• Whether contract information between two third parties was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential and if its disclosure would foster a public benefit relationship.

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld records related to noise and vibration studies under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged the VFPA did not make reasonable efforts to assist them, providing illegible documents. The Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under exemptions like paragraph 18(b) concerning negotiations, much of the withheld information did not meet the exemption requirements. The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose certain records and provide legible copies of maps, photos, and tables, which the VFPA agreed to implement.

• Improper withholding of records under multiple ATIA exemptions (e.g., s. 13(1), s. 18(b), s. 18(d), s. 19(1), s. 20(1)(b), s. 21(1)(a), s. 21(1)(d)).
• Failure to make reasonable efforts to assist the requester (ATIA s. 4(2.1)) by providing illegible documents.
• Burden of proof on the institution and third parties to justify exemptions.
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution when withholding information.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request concerned "Activity Progress Reports" related to the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or "missing children" programs. CIRNAC cited "resource limitations" for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable, stating that resource constraints do not justify non-compliance with the Act, and ordered CIRNAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Justification for delays due to resource limitations
• Definition of a complete response under the Act

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated Bell Canada after a complainant alleged Bell contravened PIPEDA by not responding to an access request within 30 days and denying access to cellphone logs. The OPC found Bell contravened PIPEDA by delaying its response to the access request and by denying the complainant access to his phone logs, which were determined to be his personal information. Bell also failed to be open about its policies regarding shared account information. Bell has agreed to provide the requested logs and implement recommendations to improve its procedures for handling shared account requests and its privacy communications.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Access to personal information held by a service provider on a shared account
• Definition of personal information in the context of phone logs
• Openness of an organization's privacy policies and practices