Canadian Privacy Decisions

A representative acting for the executor of an estate requested personal information about a deceased individual from the Department of National Defence (DND). DND determined the representative was not entitled to the information under paragraph 10(b) of the Privacy Regulations because they did not sufficiently demonstrate a connection between the information sought and the administration of the estate. While DND processed the request informally and disclosed some information under another provision of the Act, they did not clearly state the grounds for refusal. The OPC found the complaint not well-founded as the representative failed to adequately articulate and substantiate the estate's purposes and how the records would serve them.

• Whether the representative was authorized to make a request on behalf of the deceased under paragraph 10(b) of the Privacy Regulations for the purpose of administering the estate.
• Whether the representative sufficiently demonstrated a connection between the information sought and the administration of the deceased's estate.
• Whether DND properly notified the representative of the refusal and the basis for it.
• Whether DND properly handled the request informally.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for "School Narratives" and supporting documents. CIRNAC officials identified that records existed but refused to process them, citing confidentiality and a lengthy processing time. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering CIRNAC to retrieve and process all responsive records and provide a new response to the request.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Institution's refusal to process identified records
• Complainant's right of access to records under the control of a government institution

The complainant alleged that National Defence failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a selection process for Steward/Command Master Sailor. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigation found that not all relevant offices were tasked and the search criteria were unclear. National Defence was ordered to complete the retrieval of all responsive records and provide a new response to the access request.

• Reasonable search
• Completeness of search
• Clarity of tasking for record retrieval

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Mental Health Counselling benefit, including a "detailed review" and related proposals and reviews. ISC initially claimed the "detailed review" was verbal and no records existed. However, further investigation revealed ISC had not conducted an adequate search, and a subsequent search located at least 170 pages of responsive documents. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered ISC to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a new response to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Existence of records for "detailed review" mentioned in an internal briefing note
• Scope and completeness of the search efforts

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld records related to Dukoral under various ATIA exemptions, including personal information, third-party commercial information, and solicitor-client privilege. While some exemptions like solicitor-client privilege were upheld, the Commissioner found that Health Canada did not sufficiently demonstrate that information withheld under commercial and advice/recommendations exemptions met the required criteria. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose specific information previously withheld.

• Confidential third-party commercial, financial, scientific or technical information (s. 20(1)(b))
• Financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c))
• Advice or recommendations (s. 21(1)(a))
• Solicitor-client privilege (s. 23)

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) contravened the Privacy Act when an employee inadvertently sent 497 emails containing personal information to the wrong email addresses. The investigation found that IRCC had insufficient administrative and procedural controls to prevent such errors. While IRCC took steps to notify affected individuals and mitigate harm, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner recommended improvements to prevent future breaches. IRCC accepted these recommendations and implemented enhanced measures, leading the OPC to consider the matter resolved.

• Whether IRCC contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information to unintended recipients.
• Adequacy of IRCC's administrative and procedural controls to prevent accidental disclosures.
• Effectiveness of IRCC's measures to mitigate the impact of the breach on affected individuals.
• Sufficiency of IRCC's actions to reduce the risk of recurrence.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to the Wood Mountain (Lakota) First Nation land claim. While CIRNAC initially provided records from 2017 onwards, OIC investigation and research revealed potential missing records from 2009 to 2016. Following further searches prompted by the OIC, CIRNAC located additional records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered CIRNAC to complete the retrieval and processing of all responsive records and provide a new response to the complainant.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Identification and location of all records responsive to the access request
• Completeness of the records provided to the complainant

An institution applied for approval to decline to act on five access requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right to access information. The Information Commissioner found that two of the requests (A-2023-00305 and A-2023-00314) were indeed an abuse of the right to access. Consequently, the Commissioner approved the institution's decision to decline to act on those two specific requests. However, the institution failed to prove that the remaining three requests (A-2023-00303, A-2023-00308 and A-2023-00310) were vexatious or an abuse of the right to access.

• Whether access requests are vexatious
• Whether access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request
• Application of section 6.1 of the Access to Information Act

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information. The Commissioner agreed, finding the request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

An institution applied to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right to access information. The institution claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Information Commissioner found that the institution had indeed made reasonable efforts to assist the requester and that the request, due to its breadth and the estimated 700,000 pages it would generate, constituted an abuse of the right to access information as it would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations and hinder other requesters' access rights. The Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to applying to decline the request.
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access information.
• Whether the application to decline to act was submitted in a timely manner.
• The substantial volume of records and its impact on institutional operations and other requesters' access rights.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld records concerning the Laval River slope stabilization project. The Information Commissioner found that DFO failed to justify withholding information under exemptions related to confidential government information (s. 13(1)(c)) and financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c)). However, the Commissioner upheld the withholding of personal information under s. 19(1). DFO was ordered to release the information withheld under s. 13(1)(c) and s. 20(1)(c), and indicated its intention to comply.

• Whether information was obtained in confidence from a government body (s. 13(1)(c) ATIA)
• Whether information constituted personal information (s. 19(1) ATIA)
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause a material financial impact on a third party (s. 20(1)(c) ATIA)

The complainant requested a copy of an agreement between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and the Musqueam Indian Band. The VFPA withheld the entire agreement, citing exemptions related to competitive position and confidential third-party information. The Information Commissioner found that the VFPA did not adequately justify withholding the information under the competitive position exemption and failed to reasonably exercise its discretion. The Commissioner also found that the information did not meet the criteria for the confidential third-party information exemption. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether the agreement between VFPA and Musqueam Indian Band qualified for exemption under subsection 18(b) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).
• Whether the VFPA reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information under subsection 18(b) ATIA.
• Whether the agreement contained information qualifying for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party as required by paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA.

The complainant alleged that Global Affairs Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to international education roundtables in 2010 and Canada's decision not to endorse the "London Statement." The investigation found that additional responsive records should have existed but were not preserved due to inadvertence and poor information management practices. Global Affairs conducted further searches and found additional records. The Commissioner ordered Global Affairs to provide the newly found records and recommended improvements to information management practices.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Proper preservation and retention of records
• Identification and disclosure of responsive records

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld dates related to an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) under exemptions for confidential third-party commercial information (paragraph 20(1)(b)) and potential financial impact on a third party (paragraph 20(1)(c)). The Information Commissioner found that the dates did not meet the criteria for either exemption, as they were considered administrative details rather than commercial information and the expectation of financial harm was too speculative. The Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the dates.

• Whether the dates of correspondence are confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Whether disclosure of the dates could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party or harm its competitive position under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA.
• The interpretation of 'commercial information' in light of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.
• The requirement for a reasonable expectation of probable harm to justify withholding information under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) did not conduct a reasonable search for records related to specific First Nations in British Columbia between 1871 and 1960. During the OIC investigation, DFO conducted a second search and retrieved approximately 7000 additional pages of responsive records. The Information Commissioner found the initial search to be unreasonable but was satisfied after the second search.

• Reasonable search
• Scope of the request