Canadian privacy & access decisions

An anonymous applicant complained that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under multiple sections of the Access to Information Act (ATIA) in response to a request for records concerning the "Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) Mandate and Membership." During the investigation, PCO failed to provide any representations to justify its application of exemptions, despite multiple requests from the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC). The Commissioner found that PCO did not meet the burden of proof for exemptions under subsections 13(1), 15(1), 16(1), 16(2), 18, and 24(1), citing reasons such as the Canadian origin of information, prior disclosures, inconsistent redactions, the age of the records, and the absence of justification. While subsection 19(1) was upheld for certain personal information, the Commissioner found no basis for PCO to exercise discretion to release it. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded the complaint was well founded and ordered PCO to fully disclose all responsive records improperly withheld. PCO subsequently gave notice that it would not fully implement the order and attempted to provide late submissions, but the Commissioner rejected these new arguments and maintained the original order.

• Whether s.13(1) applied to Canadian-authored analysis concerning foreign governments or international events
• Whether s.13(1) applied given the absence of representations from PCO
• Whether s.15(1) applied given prior disclosures of identical information by other federal institutions
• Whether s.15(1) applied to distribution markings given prior disclosures by PCO and other departments
• Whether s.15(1) applied given inconsistent redactions of the same document within the records
• Whether s.15(1) applied given the absence of representations from PCO explaining the nature of harm
• Whether s.16(1)(a) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
• Whether s.16(1)(b) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
• Whether s.16(1)(c) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
• Whether s.16(1)(d) applied given PCO's failure to specify the paragraph relied upon, the age of the information, and lack of representations
• Whether s.16(2) applied given the decades-old nature of the information and the absence of representations explaining how it could facilitate an offence today
• Whether s.18(a) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
• Whether s.18(b) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
• Whether s.18(c) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
• Whether s.18(d) applied given the historical nature of the information and the absence of representations specifying the paragraph or demonstrating economic harm
• Whether s.19(1) applied to personal information of other individuals
• Whether PCO properly exercised discretion under s.19(2) to release personal information
• Whether s.24(1) applied to the acronym "CSIS" given its public nature and prior disclosures
• Whether s.24(1) applied to names of CSIS employees without representations explaining covert status or continued protection
• Whether PCO's submissions made after the initial report should be considered