Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) failed to respond to an access request for records concerning the "Cedar LNG" project within the extended timeframe. The investigation found that ECCC did not respond by the deadline, and the delay was attributed to internal offices taking too long to provide records. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering ECCC to provide interim responses and a complete response by March 16, 2026, and recommended improvements to internal processes for timely record submission.

• Failure to respond within the statutory time limits.
• Timeliness of internal record retrieval by Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs).
• Adequacy of ECCC's processes for handling access to information requests.
• Balancing the need for consultations with the right to timely access.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld financial statements for the leaseback of seven buildings, citing exemptions related to government financial interests, personal information, third-party commercial information, and consultations. PSPC failed to demonstrate that the exemptions applied, particularly given the public funds involved. The Information Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the information, and the institution indicated it would comply. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Application of exemptions under paragraphs 18(d), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and 21(1)(b) of the ATIA.
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify withholding information, especially concerning public funds.
• Adequacy of representations to demonstrate material harm, financial impact, or interference with negotiations.
• Confidentiality requirements for third-party information under paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complainant alleged that the Department of National Defence (DND) improperly refused to issue a new response letter for a request concerning authority to generate Branch Standing Orders. DND stated that no records were found after a thorough search and included additional contextual information and hyperlinks to publicly available documents. The complainant argued this contextual information was speculative and breached DND's duty to assist. The Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) found that DND's response was complete and appropriate, and the supplementary information was provided in good faith to assist the requester without misrepresenting the search results or creating new records.

• Whether DND improperly refused to issue a new response letter.
• Whether DND's inclusion of contextual information breached its duty to assist requesters.
• Whether DND's response accurately and completely addressed the access request.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions related to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. The investigation found that the RCMP did not adequately search records within the requested timeframe and improperly deemed a large police reporting file irrelevant. The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search and process the previously excluded file.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the RCMP.
• Timeliness of the search conducted by the RCMP.
• Relevance of the Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for a specific report and associated documents within the mandatory 30-day timeframe. The investigation found that DND did not provide a response by the deadline, and a delay by an internal Office of Primary Interest (OPI) in retrieving records was deemed unacceptable. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Failure to meet the 30-day response deadline
• Unacceptable delay in record retrieval by an OPI

The complainant alleged that the Department of National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day period required by the Access to Information Act. The request was for a specific document dated November 8, 2018. The investigation found that DND did not respond by the deadline and was therefore deemed to have refused access. The delay was caused by a subordinate office (CFINTCOM) taking an unacceptably long time to retrieve the requested records. The Information Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within the 30-day time limit
• DND deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3)
• Unacceptable delay in record retrieval by subordinate office
• Order for complete response within 36 business days

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning Class D operation with a single engine helicopter, requested between Transport Canada and the RCMP. Transport Canada initially provided only two pages but later, during the investigation, found approximately 690 additional pages. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, ordering Transport Canada to process these additional records and respond to the complainant within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by Transport Canada
• Proper processing of additional responsive records
• Timeliness of response after additional records were found

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint against Google's search engine service. The complainant alleged that Google was violating PIPEDA by displaying links to old media articles about their arrest and criminal charge. While the OPC found that Google complied with accuracy requirements, it determined that the continued display of these sensitive articles, which caused significant harm to the complainant, outweighed the limited public interest. The OPC recommended Google de-list the articles, but Google refused, stating the matter should be decided by the courts.

• Whether Google contravened PIPEDA's accuracy requirements by displaying links to outdated articles.
• Whether Google contravened PIPEDA's "appropriate purposes" provision by displaying sensitive personal information linked to an individual's name.
• Balancing individual privacy rights against freedom of expression in the context of search engine results.
• Determining the public interest in accessing historical, sensitive information via search engine results.

The complainant asked for the number of paid subscribers to CBC Gem. The CBC claimed this information was excluded under section 68.1 (journalistic, creative, or programming activities) and exempt under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position). The Information Commissioner found that the subscriber numbers, while related to programming, also related to the CBC's general administration, engaging the exception to section 68.1. The Commissioner also found that the CBC failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm to its competitive position or negotiations, beyond a mere possibility, if the information were disclosed. The Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose the information, but the CBC stated it would not implement the order.

• Applicability of section 68.1 exclusion to subscriber numbers
• Engagement of the exception to section 68.1 for general administration
• Demonstration of reasonable expectation of harm to competitive position under paragraph 18(b)
• Demonstration of reasonable expectation of interference with negotiations under paragraph 18(b)

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The request was for emails containing specific keywords related to COVID-19 and lockdowns. The Information Commissioner found that while some information, like contact tracing details and offender histories, properly qualified as personal information, other withheld information, such as the type of incidents in situation reports and dates of shifts for certain staff, did not. CSC was ordered to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), and the institution indicated it would comply.

• Whether information withheld under subsection 19(1) of the ATIA qualifies as personal information.
• Whether the institution demonstrated that disclosing certain information (e.g., shift dates, type of incident) would identify an individual.
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under subsection 19(2) of the ATIA.

The complainant requested an agreement and land claim settlement signed in 2000 between the federal government and the Squamish band from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC). CIRNAC withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that neither CIRNAC nor the third party (Squamish Nation) demonstrated that the exemptions applied. The Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety, but CIRNAC indicated they would not be disclosing them.

• Application of paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Application of paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party)
• Application of section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Burden of proof on institution and third party to demonstrate exemptions

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner seeking approval to decline an access request, claiming it was vexatious. The institution argued the request was made in retaliation for how a previous request was handled, citing the requester's deadline threat, refusal to narrow the scope, and threats to complain to other commissioners. The Commissioner found the institution did not prove the request was vexatious, noting the requester's explanations for their actions were more plausible. Therefore, the application to decline the request was denied.

• Whether the access request was vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access.
• Interpretation of the phrase 'further action will be taken' in the context of an access request.
• Whether a requester's refusal to narrow the scope of a request indicates a vexatious purpose.
• Whether the timing and content of the request indicated vexatious intent.

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld records concerning decisions to change mailing services in Iqaluit, citing personal information, trade secrets, and advice/deliberation exemptions. The complainant also questioned the thoroughness of Canada Post's search for records. The Information Commissioner found that Canada Post failed to justify withholding records under subsection 18.1(1) and did not demonstrate a reasonable search was conducted. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose specific information and conduct a new search.

• Justification for withholding records under subsection 18.1(1)
• Applicability of subsection 18.1(2) exceptions
• Reasonableness of Canada Post's search for records
• Burden of proof on the institution to justify exemptions

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for specific categories of records held by a subject matter expert. Following the investigation, the CRA conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. The Commissioner ordered the CRA to process these additional records and provide a new response within 60 business days.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution.
• Existence of additional responsive records.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for correspondence related to specific topics. The CRA initially provided some records and explained why others were not retrieved. However, during the investigation, the CRA conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded.

• Reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution
• Completeness of the records disclosed
• Requirement to disclose records previously provided in response to other requests