Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a list of grants and contributions, including assistance type and other details, approved under specific ISED programs. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding paragraph 20(1)(c). ISED argued that disclosing the assistance type would harm its negotiating position by allowing companies to compare terms and seek more favorable conditions, thereby interfering with future negotiations. However, the Commissioner found that ISED failed to demonstrate how the release of this information would cause further harm, as similar information was already publicly available. The Commissioner concluded that ISED did not meet the requirements of paragraph 18(b) and ordered the disclosure of the withheld information. ISED agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA applied to information regarding the assistance type of grants and contributions
• Whether disclosure could injure the competitive position of a government institution
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to the competitive position
• Whether contractual or other negotiations were under way or would be conducted in the future
• Whether disclosure could interfere with negotiations
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations
• Whether ISED properly exercised its discretion under s.18(b)

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a high number of complaints alleging delays in responding to access requests, particularly for immigration application information. The investigation found a dramatic increase in requests to CBSA for records stored in the Global Case Management System (GCMS), which is also accessed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). This surge was attributed to IRCC's failure to implement an effective system for clients to directly retrieve their immigration information, leading requesters to file identical requests with both institutions. Despite CBSA's efforts to increase funding, implement automation, and improve consistency and collaboration, the Commissioner found that CBSA must continue to find ways to meet its obligations under the Act, as the root cause (IRCC's system deficiencies) is outside its control. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

• Whether Canada Border Services Agency failed to respond to access requests within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the increase in access requests to Canada Border Services Agency for immigration application information is due to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's lack of an effective system for direct client information retrieval
• Whether Canada Border Services Agency's current measures are sufficient to address the high volume of access requests and backlog

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the 30-day statutory period. The request sought correspondence related to a hiring process for a General Safety Officer position at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, including information about the anticipated re-hire of a named individual. DND received the request on April 3, 2023, and did not extend the deadline or transfer the request, making the due date May 3, 2023. The investigation found that DND did not respond by this date, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The delay was attributed to a lack of responsiveness from one of the Offices of Primary Interest within DND. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request within 36 business days of the final report. DND subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether National Defence responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether National Defence is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA due to delay