Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information from a contract with Presidia Security Consulting Inc. under subsections 19(1), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, CSC agreed to no longer rely on subsection 21(1)(a) and conceded that some information withheld under subsection 19(1) did not meet the exemption criteria. The Information Commissioner found that CSC had properly applied subsection 19(1) to the remaining personal information, as the criteria were met and no circumstances for discretionary disclosure under subsection 19(2) existed. However, the Commissioner determined that information on page 337 was improperly withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), as CSC and Presidia failed to demonstrate how it met the requirements for confidentiality, financial/commercial nature, or potential for financial harm/competitive injury. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered CSC to release the information it had agreed to disclose, as well as the specific information on page 337 previously withheld under section 20. CSC subsequently released the additional information.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.19(2) discretion to disclose personal information was required
• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations exemption was properly applied

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada's 510-day time extension to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request sought records related to the implementation of new testing and quarantine measures for non-essential international air travel. Transport Canada justified the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) for a large volume of records, 9(1)(b) for necessary consultations with five other government institutions, and 9(1)(c) for third-party consultations. The Commissioner found that the request involved a large volume of records (over 3,000 pages) and that responding within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with Transport Canada's operations, particularly due to COVID-19 restrictions limiting on-site access to classified documents. The Commissioner also determined that consultations with other government bodies and third parties were necessary and could not be completed within 30 days. The Commissioner concluded that the total 510-day extension was reasonable given the circumstances, including the pandemic's impact on operations and the complexity of consultations. Therefore, the complaint was not well founded.

• Whether the time extension taken by Transport Canada was unreasonable
• Whether the request was for a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records (s.9(1)(a))
• Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations (s.9(1)(a))
• Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances (s.9(1)(a))
• Whether consultations on the requested records were necessary (s.9(1)(b))
• Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days (s.9(1)(b))
• Whether the extension of time for consultations was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances (s.9(1)(b))
• Whether consultations with third parties were necessary (s.9(1)(c))
• Whether the extension of time for third-party consultations was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances (s.9(1)(c))
• Whether Transport Canada met the requirements to claim an extension of time by notifying the requester within 30 days

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought information related to "Active Measures – The Soviet Bloc Practice of Deception, Disruption and Defamation." Initially, LAC withheld the entire 33-page record but later dropped its reliance on subsection 19(1) and released some information. The Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of subsection 15(1), noting the extensive public domain information on the topic. Despite the Commissioner's recommendation to disclose all remaining information, LAC refused to implement it. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.15(1) national security exemption was properly applied
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm national security
• Whether the institution provided sufficient justification for the s.15(1) claim
• Whether the information was already in the public domain
• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) improperly withheld information from a 1989 RCMP Security Service briefing on Hugh George Hambleton under subsections 13(1), 15(1), and 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, LAC dropped its reliance on subsections 13(1) and 19(1). The Information Commissioner focused on LAC's application of subsection 15(1) (national security). The Commissioner found that a significant amount of information about Hambleton, including his espionage activities, conviction, and parliamentary discussions, was already in the public domain. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that LAC failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, as required by subsection 15(1). The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the records. However, the Minister of Canadian Heritage declined to implement the recommendations.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA (confidential information from government bodies) was properly applied
• Whether s.15(1) ATIA (national security) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
• Whether disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm national security interests under s.15(1)
• Whether the public availability of information about Hugh George Hambleton undermines the application of s.15(1)
• Whether the passage of time affects the applicability of s.15(1)
• Whether the institution fulfilled its burden of demonstrating the requirements of the exemption under s.15(1)

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) conducted an incomplete search for records related to the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan for a specific period in 2016. During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that DND had tasked the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) to retrieve the records, but the RCN reported them as "lost." DND conducted a Summary Investigation into the disappearance of the log pages, which revealed that the log book had been transferred and used by another vessel, and the relevant pages had been removed. Despite extensive efforts, including interviews with crew members, DND's investigation could not definitively determine when or how the pages went missing. The OIC concluded that DND conducted a reasonable search, tasking appropriate sectors and making reasonable efforts, but the records could not be found. The OIC noted the implications of deficiencies in records management but found no basis to conclude that DND failed its search obligations or that records could reasonably be found.

• Whether National Defence conducted a reasonable search for the requested records

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. The request sought records pertaining to specific operational reviews concerning co-operation between CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). CSIS claimed a 240-day extension, which the OIC previously found to be valid, setting the due date for May 31, 2021. However, CSIS failed to respond by this extended deadline. The OIC found that CSIS was in deemed refusal, noting that the delay was partly due to outstanding consultations with the RCMP and operational challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite CSIS's stated intention to process records without further delay, it proposed an additional month beyond the RCMP's consultation timeline. The Commissioner concluded that CSIS had not adequately addressed the delay and ordered the institution to complete processing and provide a response within 36 business days.

• Whether CSIS failed to respond to an access request within the time limits
• Whether CSIS was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld GPS tracking records for a specific RCMP vehicle for a 30-minute period on February 19, 2017, under paragraphs 16(1)(c) and 16(2) of the Access to Information Act. The RCMP argued that releasing the GPS coordinates could reveal patrol patterns, facilitate illegal activities, and endanger officers. The Information Commissioner found that the RCMP did not demonstrate how this specific, limited, and four-year-old information could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged harms. The Commissioner also noted that the RCMP failed to explain its exercise of discretion regarding disclosure. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner recommended the release of the withheld GPS information.

• Whether s.16(1)(c) law enforcement harm was reasonably expected from the disclosure of specific GPS coordinates
• Whether s.16(2) facilitation of an offence was reasonably expected from the disclosure of specific GPS coordinates
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information under s.16(1)(c)
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information under s.16(2)

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to respond to two access to information requests within the statutory deadlines. The requests sought records related to the procurement of animals for the Prison Farm program run by CORCAN at Collins Bay and Joyceville institutions. PSPC claimed extensions for both requests, citing the volume of records and resource limitations, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, PSPC missed the extended deadlines, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner found that PSPC had not adequately addressed the unreasonable delay, noting that the complainant had been waiting over two years for a response. The Commissioner concluded that the complaints were well founded and ordered PSPC to provide a final response to both requests forthwith.

• Whether Public Services and Procurement Canada failed to respond to access requests within statutory deadlines
• Whether Public Services and Procurement Canada was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) ATIA
• Whether the extensions claimed by Public Services and Procurement Canada were valid
• Whether the delay in processing the requests was unreasonable

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Access to Information Act in response to 64 separate access requests. The withheld information was located in the "History" field of IRCC's GCMS Information Request: Application, which IRCC initially claimed would facilitate the commission of an offence if disclosed. IRCC argued that releasing this audit trail could allow individuals to manipulate immigration programs. The OIC investigated, finding that IRCC had not established a reasonable expectation of harm beyond a mere possibility, and the causal link between disclosure and facilitating an offence was too remote. After extensive discussions, IRCC ultimately agreed to release the information in its entirety. Although the information was released, the Commissioner found the complaints to be well founded because IRCC was not justified in its initial withholding.

• Whether s.16(2)(c) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied to information in the "History" field of GCMS records
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm beyond a mere possibility if the information was disclosed
• Whether a causal link existed between the disclosure of information and the facilitation of an offence

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information related to piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, the Creative Salmon Company Ltd., or jaundice syndrome, claiming exemptions under paragraphs 18(c), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that DFO failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish their findings first, as required by paragraph 18(c). Furthermore, neither DFO nor the third party, Creative Salmon Ltd., established that the information was confidential, supplied by the third party, or consistently treated as confidential, as required by paragraph 20(1)(b). The OIC also concluded that DFO and Creative Salmon Ltd. did not show a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or harm to competitive position from disclosure, as claimed under paragraph 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner recommended full disclosure of the information, with the exception of personal information. DFO agreed to implement the recommendations, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the information was scientific or technical
• Whether the information was obtained through research by a government employee or officer
• Whether disclosing the information could threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish the results of their research first
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm under s.18(c)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.18(c)
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(b)
• Whether disclosing the information could result in substantial financial loss or gain to the third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of substantial financial loss or gain under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether disclosing the information could injure the competitive position of the third party under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of injury to competitive position under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether DFO reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(1)(c)
• Whether DFO should have considered disclosure under subsection 20(6) for public health, safety, or environmental protection reasons

The complainant submitted an access to information request to a federal institution and received a response in October 2021. The institution's response included a notice informing the complainant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days. The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) in January 2022, which was more than sixty days after receiving the institution's response. The OIC determined that the complaint was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe specified in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner concluded that the OIC does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe as per s.31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint