Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant requested the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA withheld the total amount of CEWS received by each company, citing exemptions under the Access to Information Act (ATIA), including subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law). The OIC found that the withheld information was about identifiable taxpayers and was prepared for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and therefore properly withheld under subsection 24(1). Consequently, the complaint was found not well founded.

• Whether the CEWS database information was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA, citing section 241 of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the information was properly withheld under paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the ATIA.

The complainant alleged the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the "E Norther" file. The RCMP initially refused to search the Legal Services Unit, claiming records would not be under their control. The Information Commissioner found this unreasonable, ordering the RCMP to search and process any responsive records found. The RCMP subsequently located additional records and provided a supplementary release to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Determination of record control for access to information purposes.
• Scope of records requested by the complainant.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to an access request for documents concerning the Copyright Media Clearance Program by the extended deadline. PSPC had not provided a response when the extended deadline of September 4, 2020, expired. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well-founded and ordered PSPC to provide a final response within 10 days.

• Whether the institution responded to the access request within the extended time limit.
• The implications of an institution failing to respond by the deadline.

The complainant alleged that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records containing all final decisions made between January 2018 and June 2020. The IRB's ATIP office mistakenly narrowed the request to only written decisions, excluding responsive audio recordings without the complainant's consent. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered the IRB to process all responsive audio recordings.

• Reasonableness of search
• Definition of 'record' under ATIA
• Scope of access request
• Assistance to requesters

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) unreasonably extended the time to respond to an access request for correspondence sent and received by its president during a specific week. PHAC cited a large volume of records (estimated at 30,000 pages) and the need for consultations as justification for the extensive extension. The Information Commissioner found that PHAC provided sufficient justification for the time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, making the complaint not well-founded.

• Reasonableness of time extension due to volume of records (ATIA s. 9(1)(a))
• Reasonableness of time extension due to consultations (ATIA s. 9(1)(b))
• Impact of request scope on institution's operations
• Complainant's willingness to narrow the scope of the request

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld Total Repayment figures related to the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) program, citing exemptions concerning financial impact on third parties (s. 20(1)(c)) and other provisions. The scope was narrowed to 21 third parties. The Information Commissioner found that neither ISED nor the third parties provided sufficient evidence to meet the requirements for these exemptions. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all the withheld information.

• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party information).
• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether the Total Repayments figures meet the criteria for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(d) (interference with third-party negotiations).
• The burden of proof on the institution and third parties to demonstrate that exemptions apply.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for permission to ignore two access requests, claiming they were vexatious and an abuse of the access to information process. The institution also argued it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Commissioner found the institution failed in its duty to assist and did not prove the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the process. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's applications, requiring it to process the requests.

• Whether the access requests were vexatious
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to access information
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester