Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request sought internal and external records related to a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Regulations Amending the Tobacco Products Regulations. Health Canada acknowledged that it had not responded by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3). The institution identified 20,250 pages of responsive records and indicated that extensive consultations with its Legal Services Unit, 10 other government departments, and 25-30 third parties would be required. Health Canada proposed a response date of July 17, 2030, citing the volume and complexity of records, and workload. The Commissioner found this proposed timeline unreasonable given the significant delay already incurred and the complainant's denied access rights. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to provide a complete response by April 7, 2026, which the institution agreed to implement.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Health Canada's proposed response date of July 17, 2030, was reasonable

The complainant, a father involved in a custody dispute, submitted an ATIP request to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) for his minor child's passport application, which had been submitted by his former spouse. He provided a court order authorizing him to obtain his children's information from third parties. IRCC denied the request, stating that the child's consent was required. The complainant alleged that IRCC improperly denied access despite the court order. The OPC investigated whether the complainant had a right of access under paragraph 10(a) of the Privacy Regulations, which allows access on behalf of a minor under certain conditions. The OPC found that while the child was a minor and the complainant had legal authorization to administer the child's affairs, the request was not made on the child's behalf, but rather for the complainant's own interests. Therefore, the third condition of paragraph 10(a) was not met, and IRCC's denial was deemed reasonable.

• Whether the complainant had a right of access to his child’s personal information under section 10 of the Privacy Regulations
• Whether the child was a minor at the time of the ATIP request
• Whether the complainant had legal authorization to administer the child's affairs
• Whether the complainant exercised the right of access on the minor’s behalf
• Whether the child had the decision-making capacity to provide consent for the release of their personal information

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act and failed to conduct a reasonable search for records. The request sought records related to the funding of a medical residency training program. DND conceded that it had not properly applied subsection 19(1) in all instances and issued a supplementary disclosure, with the Commissioner finding the remaining withholdings appropriate. However, the Commissioner concluded that DND did not conduct a reasonable search initially, as additional records were found during the investigation, and some responsive records that should have existed were not retained. The Commissioner recommended DND ensure employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities. DND agreed to implement the recommendations and shared a plan for improving records management practices. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was properly withheld under subsection 19(1) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of subsection 19(1) ATIA
• Whether DND reasonably exercised its discretion under subsection 19(2) ATIA
• Whether DND conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether DND failed to pursue inquiries to locate all responsive records

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, as required by subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records concerning meetings and lobbying efforts of Pathways Alliance Inc. between January 14, 2023, and May 4, 2023. ECCC received the request on May 4, 2023, and extended the response period by 120 days, setting a new deadline of October 10, 2023, which it failed to meet. The investigation revealed that delays were primarily due to two offices of primary interest (OPIs) taking over 10 months to retrieve responsive records. The Commissioner found this delay unacceptable and concluded that ECCC did not meet its obligations under the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and ECCC was ordered to provide a complete response by August 7, 2024, and was given recommendations to improve internal processes.

• Whether Environment and Climate Change Canada responded to the access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay in responding was attributable to a lack of responsiveness from Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period for documents related to Operation Safe Haven. The OIC found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), an Office of Primary Interest (OPI), which failed to provide responsive records in a timely manner. The Commissioner concluded that this delay was unacceptable and affected DND's ability to meet its obligations under the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days. The Commissioner also recommended DND develop better processes and accountability measures for OPIs regarding timely record provision.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence was deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
• Whether the delay by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM) in retrieving records was acceptable

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period for all documents relating to the course of action of Operation Aegis. The OIC found that DND received the request on September 1, 2023, and did not extend the response period or transfer the request, making the deadline October 1, 2023. DND failed to respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that delays were primarily due to the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM), one of DND's Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), which had not yet provided all responsive records to the Departmental Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP) office. The Commissioner deemed CFINTCOM's delay unacceptable and emphasized the collective responsibility of the institution to ensure timely access to information. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and DND was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence validly extended the 30-day period under section 9 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the delay by the Office of Primary Interest (Canadian Forces Intelligence Command) in retrieving records was acceptable

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, arguing the request was both an abuse of the right to make a request and vexatious. The request sought emails from three employees containing specific keywords and the HR file of one employee. The institution claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester by engaging in numerous communications to clarify and narrow the request. The Commissioner found that the institution had indeed made every reasonable effort to assist the requester. However, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access or was vexatious. The Commissioner noted that seeking information related to government employees is not inherently abusive and that the institution did not adequately substantiate claims of undue burden or privacy invasion. Consequently, the application to decline to act on the request was denied.

• Whether the institution met its obligation to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request is vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) improperly withheld information related to the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Public Accountability and Transparency Requirements under several sections of the Access to Information Act. Initially, SSHRC claimed exemptions under s.16(2)(c), s.19(1), s.20(1)(c), s.20(1)(d), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). During the investigation, the s.16(2)(c) claim was removed from the scope, and SSHRC additionally relied on s.20(1)(b). The Commissioner found that SSHRC appropriately withheld information under s.19(1) (personal information) and parts of s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) (advice/recommendations and consultations/deliberations), as the requirements for these exemptions were met and discretion was reasonably exercised. However, SSHRC failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements for s.20(1)(b), s.20(1)(c), and s.20(1)(d) due to insufficient evidence of confidentiality, financial impact, or interference with negotiations. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered SSHRC to disclose all redacted information except that falling under s.19(1), s.21(1)(a), and s.21(1)(b). SSHRC agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.16(2)(c) facilitating the commission of an offence applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.19(1) personal information applied to the withheld information
• Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.19(2)
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) material financial impact on a third party applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations applied to the withheld information
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied to the withheld information
• Whether SSHRC reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)

An anonymous applicant requested internal and external communications, research findings, and results concerning the monitoring of adverse events and causation between COVID-19 vaccines and fatalities/serious adverse events from January 2021 to December 2022. A federal institution applied under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on this request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access, and that it had fulfilled its duty to assist. The Commissioner found that the institution had made every reasonable effort to assist the requester in narrowing the request, which the requester largely declined. The Commissioner determined that the request, as framed, was an abuse of the right of access because it was overly broad, would generate an estimated 700,000 pages, and processing it would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations and hinder other requesters' rights. The Commissioner also noted overlap with other requests from the same requester. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the institution's application under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA was timely
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether processing the request would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations
• Whether processing the request would hinder other requesters' right of access
• Whether the access request was repetitive or overlapped with other requests from the same requester

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1989, citing subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, PCO agreed to cease reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) and committed to disclosing much of the previously withheld information, but continued to withhold specific categories under subsections 13(1) and 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), noting a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the contested information. However, PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendation, stating it would release a high percentage of the information after further interdepartmental consultations, but not the entirety.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for historical records related to the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1982-1983. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories. The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), citing a lack of evidence for confidentiality or reasonable expectation of harm. The Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the remaining records, with the exception of names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement her recommendations, stating that while a high percentage of information would be released, certain categories would remain withheld due to ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and consultations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security for s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1981 under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially claimed subsection 19(1) as well, but this was not pursued as the OIC found it was not applied to the contested information. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose much of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits by foreign intelligence community members, dissemination markings of classified reports, names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1) for the remaining withheld information, noting that similar information had been previously released by PCO and allied countries without apparent harm. The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was well founded and recommended disclosure of the information. PCO, however, notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, citing ongoing interdepartmental declassification initiatives and the need for further consultations.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether the information was obtained from a specified government body in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain Intelligence Report titles
• Whether disclosure of certain Intelligence Report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO's arguments for harm under s.15(1) were speculative or demonstrated a reasonable expectation of probable harm

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1959. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information, but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits of Intelligence Community members, dissemination markings, names of CSE employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1) for the remaining withheld information, noting that similar information had been publicly disclosed by Canada and allied countries without apparent harm. The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose the records in their entirety, with the exception of the names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries (which the complainant did not object to redacting). PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, stating that while a high percentage of information would be released, further consultations were needed. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain intelligence report titles could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, national security, or defence under s.15(1) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information from Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979 under subsections 13(1), 15(1), and paragraph 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. PCO initially withdrew its reliance on paragraph 21(1)(b) as the records were over 20 years old. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information, but continued to withhold specific categories under subsections 13(1) and 15(1). The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to provide sufficient evidence that the information was obtained in confidence for subsection 13(1) to apply, and that PCO's arguments for harm under subsection 15(1) were speculative and contradicted by public disclosures and previous releases. The Commissioner concluded that none of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either exemption and recommended disclosure. PCO refused to implement the Commissioner's recommendations, stating it would disclose a high percentage of information but not all, and would conduct further consultations.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied to information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries
• Whether the information was obtained in confidence for s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to titles of Liaison Officers from other countries
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding titles of Liaison Officers
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to distribution markings of classified reports
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding distribution markings
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding names of CSE employees
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (international affairs, national security, defence) was properly applied to certain intelligence report titles
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to international affairs, national security, or defence for s.15(1) ATIA regarding intelligence report titles
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (account of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1966. During the investigation, PCO agreed to disclose most of the previously withheld information but maintained exemptions for specific categories, including names and titles of Liaison Officers, information on visits of Intelligence Community members, dissemination markings, names of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, and certain intelligence report titles. The Information Commissioner found that PCO failed to demonstrate that any of the remaining withheld information met the requirements of either subsection 13(1) or 15(1), citing lack of evidence for confidentiality, public availability of similar information, and speculative harm arguments. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the remaining information, except for the names of Liaison Officers which the complainant did not object to redacting. PCO notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations, stating it would disclose a high percentage but not all, and would conduct further interdepartmental consultations.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body under s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether titles of Liaison Officers from other countries were obtained in confidence
• Whether information regarding visits of Intelligence Community members from other countries was obtained in confidence
• Whether disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to harm international affairs, defence, or national security under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of titles of Liaison Officers from other countries could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of distribution markings of classified reports could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of names of CSE employees could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of certain intelligence report titles could reasonably be expected to cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.13(2) ATIA
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1) ATIA