Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1) and 18.1(1), and paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, and also failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to changes in Iqaluit's mailing service. During the investigation, Canada Post disclosed some information previously withheld under these provisions and the complainant narrowed the focus to financial information withheld under subsection 18.1(1) and the reasonable search allegation. The Commissioner found that Canada Post failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding information under subsection 18.1(1), particularly regarding whether it constituted a trade secret or fell under the general administration exception of subsection 18.1(2). Furthermore, Canada Post did not provide adequate representations to demonstrate that a reasonable search for records had been conducted. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information on pages 175-182 and to conduct a new search for responsive records. Canada Post notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information was properly withheld
• Whether s.18.1(1) trade secrets of Canada Post were properly withheld
• Whether s.18.1(1) confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post was properly withheld
• Whether s.21(1)(a) advice or recommendations were properly withheld
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations were properly withheld
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 constitutes a trade secret under s.18.1(1)
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 constitutes financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.18.1(1)
• Whether the information on pages 175-182 relates to the general administration of Canada Post under s.18.1(2)
• Whether Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought all IAC assessments concerning Russia and former Soviet Union countries from 1992. The Information Commissioner found that PCO's delay was unacceptable, noting that it took over a year to initiate consultations with other government departments. Furthermore, the Commissioner deemed PCO's proposed three-month internal consultation period following the receipt of external consultation responses as unjustified and unreasonable. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response within 60 business days and recommended a review of PCO's internal consultation and approval processes. PCO confirmed it would implement the order.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended time limits under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution's processing delay was acceptable
• Whether the institution's estimated response date was reasonable
• Whether the institution's internal consultation and approval processes were efficient

The complainant alleged that Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) improperly withheld records related to the initial application and approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline in the early 1950s. TMC initially claimed numerous exemptions under the Access to Information Act, including sections 16(2), 17, 18(a), (b), (d), 19(1), and 20(1)(a), (b), (c), (d). During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the scope, excluding technical information and information withheld under section 19(1). The Commissioner found that TMC failed to identify specific information withheld or establish how any of the remaining claimed exemptions applied, particularly noting that the 70-year-old records did not meet the criteria for section 17 (safety of individuals). TMC also failed to justify its refusal to provide a copy of the records under subsection 8(1) of the Regulations, as it did not demonstrate that reproduction would unreasonably interfere with operations or that the records' form prevented reproduction. The Commissioner ordered TMC to disclose all the information and provide a copy to the complainant. TMC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(a) ATIA (government trade secrets, financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) applied
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests, ability to manage the economy, undue benefit) applied
• Whether s.20(1)(a) ATIA (third-party trade secrets) applied
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third-party) applied
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third-party) applied
• Whether s.16(2) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) applied
• Whether s.17 ATIA (safety of individuals) applied
• Whether TMC established that disclosure could threaten the safety of an individual under s.17 ATIA
• Whether TMC established that the records were so lengthy that reproduction would unreasonably interfere with operations under s.8(1)(a) of the Regulations
• Whether TMC established that the records were in a form that does not readily lend itself to reproduction under s.8(1)(b) of the Regulations
• Whether TMC was justified in refusing to provide a copy of the records rather than an opportunity to examine them

An anonymous applicant complained that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information related to its 2020-2021 inspection plan under various sections of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that IAAC failed to demonstrate the reasonable expectation of harm or that the conditions for exemption were met for information withheld under sections 14 (federal-provincial affairs), 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations), 16(2) (facilitating an offence), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on third party), and 24(1) (restricted by other law, specifically s.30(1) of the Impact Assessment Act). Claims under sections 20(1)(b) (third-party confidential information), 21(1)(a), (b), and (c) (advice, consultations, negotiations), and 23 (solicitor-client privilege) were partially upheld, with factual or general identifying information deemed disclosable. The Commissioner also determined that IAAC failed to consider its obligation to exercise discretion regarding disclosure under sections 20(6), 21, and 23. However, information withheld under section 21(1)(d) (personnel management plans) and section 68(a) (published material) was found to be properly exempted or excluded. Consequently, the complaint was well-founded, and IAAC was ordered to disclose the improperly withheld information and re-exercise its discretion for other parts.

• Whether the information met the requirements of s.13(1) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.14 ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.16(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.16(2) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (not publicly available)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA (reasonable expectation of non-disclosure)
• Whether the relationship was fostered for public benefit by confidential communication under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was consistently treated as confidential by the third party under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to cause material financial impact or harm competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether IAAC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.20(6) ATIA
• Whether the information constituted advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from advice or recommendations under s.21(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether the information constituted accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from accounts of consultations or deliberations under s.21(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information constituted positions or plans developed for negotiations under s.21(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether factual or general identifying information was severable from positions or plans developed for negotiations under s.21(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the information constituted plans related to personnel management or administration not yet in operation under s.21(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether the information was subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege under s.23 ATIA
• Whether IAAC reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21 ATIA and s.23 ATIA
• Whether the disclosure of information was restricted by s.30(1) of the Impact Assessment Act, thereby falling under s.24(1) ATIA
• Whether the information was published or available for purchase under s.68(a) ATIA

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. The request sought records from specific dates related to parliamentary proceedings concerning the Public Health Agency of Canada and the National Microbiology Laboratory. Health Canada received the request and extended the response period by 210 days, but failed to respond by the extended deadline, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The investigation revealed that Health Canada had completed processing the request but then put the response on hold, citing ongoing investigations into the National Microbiology Laboratory incident. The Information Commissioner found that the Act does not authorize an institution to 'pause' a response pending an investigation, emphasizing that concerns about sensitive information should be addressed through the timely application of exemptions. Although the Commissioner initially intended to order a response, Health Canada subsequently provided one, rendering the order unnecessary. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the statutory time limits or extended period
• Whether Health Canada's decision to 'pause' the response to an access request pending an investigation is authorized under the Access to Information Act
• Whether a deemed refusal occurred under subsection 10(3) of the Act

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1), 18.1(1), and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought a health and safety strategy report and related invoicing from DuPont Sustainable (DSS). The OIC found that Canada Post failed to demonstrate that the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) met the requirements for confidentiality, third-party supply, or consistent confidential treatment. Similarly, for subsection 18.1(1), Canada Post did not show that the information constituted a trade secret or confidential financial/commercial information belonging to it, or that it was consistently treated as confidential. However, the OIC upheld the application of subsection 19(1) for personal contact information. The Information Commissioner ordered Canada Post to disclose the information improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and subsection 18.1(1). Canada Post agreed to implement the order, and the complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied to contact details
• Whether the information was about an individual
• Whether there was a serious possibility of identification
• Whether the information fell under exceptions to 'personal information' in the Privacy Act
• Whether s.19(2) ATIA circumstances (consent, public availability, consistency with Privacy Act s.8) existed
• Whether Canada Post reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied to invoice details
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (not publicly available)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (reasonable expectation of confidence)
• Whether the information was objectively confidential (relationship fostered for public benefit)
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party to a government institution
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether s.18.1(1) ATIA (trade secrets or confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post) was properly applied to invoice and presentation content
• Whether the information constituted a 'trade secret'
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to Canada Post
• Whether Canada Post consistently treated the information as confidential
• Whether s.18.1(2) ATIA (general administration exclusion) applied

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period for records related to an Issue Paper on Human External Cargo via Helicopter. The investigation revealed that Transport Canada's Office of Primary Interest (OPI), Safety and Security, missed the initial tasking request for records, causing significant delays. Transport Canada was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to its failure to respond within the statutory timeframe. The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response to the access request. Although Transport Canada later advised the complainant that responsive records were being processed under a separate request, the Commissioner determined this did not constitute a "complete response" as it did not provide actual access or a denial with reasons. The Commissioner also recommended that the Minister of Transport develop processes to ensure timely record provision by OPIs and establish performance indicators for senior officials regarding delays. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether Transport Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period under section 7 of the ATIA
• Whether Transport Canada's referral to another access request constituted a complete response
• Whether the delay by the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) was acceptable

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) improperly withheld information related to mortgage loans inadvertently insured or sold by Laurentian Bank of Canada under its securitization program. CMHC initially claimed multiple exemptions, but during the investigation, it released some information and maintained exemptions only under subsection 20(1) (third-party information). The Information Commissioner found that CMHC and Laurentian Bank did not demonstrate that all the requirements for the applied exemptions were met for certain third-party information. Specifically, some information was not financial, commercial, or technical in nature, or was CMHC's own work product rather than information supplied by Laurentian Bank. The Commissioner ordered CMHC to disclose this information. CMHC subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would not fully comply with the order and intended to apply to the Federal Court for a review. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.18(a) ATIA (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) applied
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) applied to all withheld information
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was confidential for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information was supplied by a third party for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party consistently treated the information as confidential for s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) applied to all withheld information
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to the third party's competitive position for s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party) applied to all withheld information
• Whether disclosure could interfere with the third party's contractual or other negotiations for s.20(1)(d) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under several exemptions and failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency. During the investigation, the complainant narrowed the exemption allegations to paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) for specific pages. The Commissioner found that the RCMP appropriately applied paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) to the information on pages 34, 36, and a portion of page 393, and reasonably exercised its discretion. However, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records, as it conceded that not all record holders were tasked and not all relevant search terms were used. The complaint was found to be well-founded due to the unreasonable search. The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search and provide a new response, disclosing any newly found records unless a valid exemption applies.

• Whether s.17 (safety of individuals) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.15(1) (national security) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.19(1) (personal information) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied to withhold information
• Whether s.21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to withhold information on pages 34, 36, and 393
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(a)
• Whether s.21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied to withhold information on page 393
• Whether the institution reasonably exercised its discretion under s.21(1)(b)
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1), 19(1), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for records related to the complainant from late 2000. The Information Commissioner found that while some information was properly withheld under these exemptions, the RCMP improperly applied subsection 13(1) to its own authored emails, which were not 'obtained' from another government body. Furthermore, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP failed to reasonably seek consent from the government bodies that provided information under subsection 13(1), as required by subsection 13(2). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose the information that did not meet the requirements of subsection 13(1) and to seek consent for the remaining information falling under subsection 13(1). The RCMP agreed to implement the order, leading to a 'well-founded' finding for the complaint.

• Whether information authored by RCMP members was 'obtained' from an international organization for the purpose of s.13(1)
• Whether information from a municipal policing organization was 'obtained in confidence' for the purpose of s.13(1)
• Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) by failing to seek consent from government bodies
• Whether information about identifiable individuals other than the complainant met the requirements of s.19(1)
• Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2)
• Whether two sentences constituted solicitor-client privileged communication under s.23
• Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion under s.23

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request for entries in the Service Administration Log, including incident notes, for suicide occurrence forms and medevac data entries related to suicide, substance use, or mental health from January 1, 2019, to July 7, 2020. Initially, ISC stated no records were located. However, during the OIC's investigation, ISC informed the OIC that 3,286 pages of responsive records were received by its access to information unit after the initial response had been sent to the requester. The Information Commissioner concluded that ISC did not initially conduct a reasonable search. The complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner ordered ISC to provide a new response to the complainant by May 31, 2025, granting access to responsive records unless specific exemptions apply. ISC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether Indigenous Services Canada conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought information related to two requests for proposals (RFP) by invitation. The OPMC argued that disclosure would harm its competitive position, financial interests, or interfere with negotiations, and that some information was personal. The Commissioner found that the OPMC's claims of harm were speculative and did not meet the requirements for the exemptions. Specifically, the names redacted under subsection 19(1) were found to be subject to the exception at paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act, as they pertained to employees receiving documents as part of their duties. The Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety, and the OPMC agreed to implement the order. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied
• Whether s.18(d) ATIA (government financial interests or Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
• Whether the names of employees receiving documents as part of their duties fall under the exception at paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party) was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(d) ATIA (negotiations by a third party) was properly applied
• Whether the alleged harms were speculative in nature

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act related to Case No. 17-05835. The OIC investigated claims under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23. The Commissioner found that the CTA and Air Transat (a third party) failed to demonstrate that the requirements for exemptions under paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) were met for certain information, particularly regarding the objective confidentiality and potential harm. The Commissioner also found that Air Transat failed to establish that section 23 (litigation privilege) applied to its information. While some information withheld by the CTA under section 23 was found to be privileged, the CTA failed to demonstrate a reasonable exercise of discretion for its non-disclosure. Similarly, for information under paragraph 21(1)(b), the CTA failed to show a reasonable exercise of discretion. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of certain information and a re-exercise of discretion for other parts.

• Whether s.20(1)(b) confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information applied to specific records
• Whether the information was financial, commercial, scientific or technical
• Whether the information was objectively confidential
• Whether s.20(1)(c) financial impact on a third party applied to specific records
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause material financial impact or harm competitive position
• Whether s.20(1)(d) interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party applied to specific records
• Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with negotiations
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied to Air Transat's information
• Whether Air Transat's information was prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation
• Whether s.23 solicitor-client and litigation privilege applied to CTA's information
• Whether communications between CTA and CRTC lawyers maintained solicitor-client privilege
• Whether the CTA reasonably exercised discretion under s.23
• Whether s.21(1)(b) accounts of consultations or deliberations applied to specific records
• Whether the CTA reasonably exercised discretion under s.21(1)(b)

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld records related to a motor vehicle crash test under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. Transport Canada initially claimed the exemption due to concerns that misinterpretation of the preliminary test results could cause harm, but later withdrew this claim. The Commissioner found that Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly given the institution's proposal to include an explanatory note. The Commissioner noted that courts have consistently found that explanatory notes can mitigate the risk of misinterpretation. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to disclose the records in full, accompanied by an explanatory note. Transport Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain to a third party
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm to a third party's competitive position
• Whether the information constituted product testing results under subsection 20(4) ATIA
• Whether an explanatory note could mitigate the risk of misinterpretation and harm

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, concerning records related to a Motor Vehicle Crash Test. Transport Canada initially withheld the records, citing concerns that misinterpretation could lead to harm, but later proposed an explanatory note to mitigate this risk. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) sought representations from third parties, with Ford Canada agreeing to disclosure if an adequate explanatory note was included. The OIC found that Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly given the institution's own proposed explanatory note. The Commissioner concluded that the information did not meet the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c). The complaint was deemed well founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to disclose the records in full with an explanatory note, to which the institution agreed to comply.

• Whether the information was properly withheld under s.20(1)(c) ATIA (financial impact on a third party)
• Whether disclosing the information could result in material financial loss or gain to a third party
• Whether there is a reasonable expectation of harm well beyond a mere possibility
• Whether disclosing the information could injure the competitive position of a third party
• Whether the information constitutes preliminary testing under s.20(4) ATIA
• Whether an explanatory note can mitigate the risk of misinterpretation leading to harm