Canadian Privacy Decisions

The Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to a significant increase in access requests for immigration information and a rise in delay complaints. The investigation found that CBSA is overwhelmed by these requests because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has not implemented an effective system for clients to retrieve their own immigration application information. This has caused a spillover effect, increasing CBSA's workload. The Commissioner made recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to address the issue, and CBSA has committed to implementing them.

• High volume of access requests for immigration application information made to CBSA.
• Increase in delay complaints against CBSA.
• Lack of an effective system for clients to retrieve immigration application information directly from IRCC.
• Impact of IRCC's delays on CBSA's ATIP unit workload.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) improperly withheld information about grants and contributions under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. ISED failed to demonstrate that disclosing the assistance type for certain projects would reasonably be expected to harm ongoing negotiations or contractual matters. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered ISED to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 18(b).

• Application of paragraph 18(b) of the ATIA regarding negotiations by government institutions.
• Burden of proof on the institution to demonstrate harm from disclosure.
• Reasonable expectation of harm to negotiations from releasing assistance type for grants and contributions.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access request for correspondence related to a hiring process within the legislated 30-day period. The investigation found that DND did not meet the deadline, and the delay was caused by the unresponsiveness of an internal office. The Information Commissioner found the complaint well-founded and ordered DND to respond to the request within 36 business days.

• Timeliness of response to an access request
• Definition of a response
• Consequences of not responding within the prescribed time limit