Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld contract information related to the aggregate extraction operation on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA) under exemptions related to third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information, and negotiations. The contract was between the OIAA and Thomas Cavanagh Construction Limited. The Information Commissioner found that while some information met the exemption criteria, much of it did not, particularly regarding confidentiality and the necessity of withholding. The Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose certain portions of the contract.

• Whether contract information between two third parties was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).
• Whether contract information was properly withheld under ATIA s. 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party).
• Whether the information was objectively confidential and if its disclosure would foster a public benefit relationship.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) failed to respond to an access request within the extended deadline. The request concerned "Activity Progress Reports" related to the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or "missing children" programs. CIRNAC cited "resource limitations" for the delay. The Information Commissioner found the delay unacceptable, stating that resource constraints do not justify non-compliance with the Act, and ordered CIRNAC to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Justification for delays due to resource limitations
• Definition of a complete response under the Act

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) improperly withheld records related to noise and vibration studies under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged the VFPA did not make reasonable efforts to assist them, providing illegible documents. The Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under exemptions like paragraph 18(b) concerning negotiations, much of the withheld information did not meet the exemption requirements. The Commissioner ordered the VFPA to disclose certain records and provide legible copies of maps, photos, and tables, which the VFPA agreed to implement.

• Improper withholding of records under multiple ATIA exemptions (e.g., s. 13(1), s. 18(b), s. 18(d), s. 19(1), s. 20(1)(b), s. 21(1)(a), s. 21(1)(d)).
• Failure to make reasonable efforts to assist the requester (ATIA s. 4(2.1)) by providing illegible documents.
• Burden of proof on the institution and third parties to justify exemptions.
• Reasonable exercise of discretion by the institution when withholding information.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated Bell Canada after a complainant alleged Bell contravened PIPEDA by not responding to an access request within 30 days and denying access to cellphone logs. The OPC found Bell contravened PIPEDA by delaying its response to the access request and by denying the complainant access to his phone logs, which were determined to be his personal information. Bell also failed to be open about its policies regarding shared account information. Bell has agreed to provide the requested logs and implement recommendations to improve its procedures for handling shared account requests and its privacy communications.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Access to personal information held by a service provider on a shared account
• Definition of personal information in the context of phone logs
• Openness of an organization's privacy policies and practices

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day timeframe. The request sought extensive information on Métis Nation land titles, treaties, and communications with Indigenous organizations. LAC determined the request was too broad and lacked specificity for their employees to identify records with reasonable effort, and thus did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner agreed that the request was too vague and did not require LAC to respond.

• Whether the access request provided sufficient detail to identify records with reasonable effort, as required by section 6 of the ATIA.
• Whether LAC made reasonable efforts to seek clarification from the complainant.
• Whether LAC was required to undertake extensive historical and legal research to identify responsive records.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an unreasonable time extension for an access request and improperly processed two requests as one. The request concerned updated consultation agreements and related internal government records. The Information Commissioner found the time extension for consultations with the Department of Justice unreasonable, citing excessive delays and lack of justification for the 90-day period. However, the Commissioner determined that CIRNAC was justified in processing the two requests as a single request.

• Reasonableness of time extension for consultations
• Justification for the length of the extension
• Proper processing of multiple requests within a single request