Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) had improperly withheld records related to land ownership and transactions on the Bruce/Saugeen Peninsula under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege). CIRNAC initially claimed solicitor-client privilege but later conceded this did not apply. The institution then argued litigation privilege, citing ongoing court cases. However, the Commissioner found CIRNAC failed to demonstrate that the records were created for the dominant purpose of litigation. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure, but CIRNAC refused to implement the recommendation.

• Applicability of section 23 (solicitor-client privilege)
• Applicability of section 23 (litigation privilege)
• Dominant purpose test for litigation privilege
• Institution's discretion to exercise privilege claims

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for a 2009 workplace report. The Department stated that the record's retention period was five years and it was requested seven years later, meaning it would have been destroyed. While the complainant claimed the consultant still had a copy, the Department argued it was not reasonable to contact the consultant directly given the nature and age of the contract. The OIC agreed that the Department conducted a reasonable search.

• Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for the requested records?
• Whether the institution was required to contact the consultant directly to fulfill the request.

The complainant requested historical Canadian intelligence assessment records. The Privy Council Office (PCO) initially withheld information under subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. While the OIC found PCO's use of subsection 19(1) justified, it determined that PCO failed to demonstrate how disclosing the remaining information under subsection 15(1) would cause harm. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the records.

• Whether the Privy Council Office met the requirements of subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act for withholding records related to distribution markings, CSE employee names, and allied distribution lists.
• Whether the Privy Council Office met the requirements of subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act for withholding personal information.
• Whether the Privy Council Office reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding not to disclose the information withheld under subsection 15(1).
• The timeliness and appropriateness of the Privy Council Office's submissions following the issuance of the initial report.