Decisions

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to complaints submitted to ESDC’s Labour Program. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, ESDC conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. ESDC advised that it intends to provide a supplemental release to the complainant.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC process the additional records and provide a new response no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report. ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the orders. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request sought all records concerning expenses incurred by the RCMP each year to provide security to internationally protected persons who visit Canada, including any available breakdown of these costs by visitor, from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. In response to the request, the RCMP provided a two-page summary of costs. The RCMP explained that the requested records were not identified and located because, in their view, it is highly likely that almost all the information would qualify for exemption or exclusion in accordance with the Act. The RCMP did not demonstrate that the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records. The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search for records and provide a new response to the complainant. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had improperly withheld information under the following provisions of the Access to Information Act:

1. paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement, conduct of investigations);
2. subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence);
3. subsection 19(1) (personal information);
4. paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information);
5. paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party);
6. paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations);
7. paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations); and
8. section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege).

This was in response to an access request for records related to CSL Group Inc., including policy health and safety committee reports and workplace health and safety committee reports, from 2012 to 2022. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that ESDC had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Apart from some personal information and recommendations that clearly meet the requirements for exemption, ESDC and the third party did not establish that any of the other information was exempt from disclosure.

ESDC did not provide adequate evidence that its search for records was reasonable.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC disclose most of the information and carry out a new search for records. ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office’s (PCO’s) record-keeping practices as they pertain to appointment processes are not in compliance with the Access to Information Act.

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f). 

PCO explained that appointment selection members may take notes during the interview process to support them during the deliberation stage. The conclusions of the deliberations between members are transcribed into a final advice letter. In terms of PCO’s record-keeping obligations within the organization and under the law, the final advice letter to the Minister is the document that constitutes the official record of the deliberations. PCO confirmed that all other documents, including handwritten notes, are considered transitory and disposed of after appointments.

The complainant also claimed that PCO’s record keeping practices give rise to a potential offence under the Act. The investigation determined that that there was no evidence of records having been destroyed with “the intent to deny a right of access”. Instead, the evidence supported a finding that the interview notes were transitory records used in the preparation of the advice letters to the then-Minister. The investigation also observed that the right of access is contingent on institutions’ proper documentation and retention of records. The Information Commissioner previously recommended the creation of a statutory duty for public servants and senior officials to properly document key actions while noting that transitory records would not need to be retained in order to safeguard accountability and transparency of government.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for documents related to a series of consultations that Health Canada organized with stakeholders, between November 30 and December 21, 2020. These consultations pertained to the Regulation Amending the Food and Drug Regulations, in particular to the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19: SOR/2021-45. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that Health Canada had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither Health Canada nor any of the third parties established that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were met. Health Canada also failed to establish that it had carried out a reasonable search when it responded to the request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose the names of the third parties in full and carry out a new search for records. Health Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted reasonable searches for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records between Transport Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) related to Class D operation with a single engine helicopter between January 1, 2017, and December 8, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, Transport Canada conducted additional searches and confirmed that approximately 690 additional pages identified to be responsive to the request exist. Transport Canada indicated that it would take at least six months to consult with the RCMP on most of those pages before providing a new response to the request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada process the additional records and provide a new response no later than 60 business days following the date of the final report. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be implementing the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for All IAC reports (IAs, SIRs, and other reports; all versions of such reports, including codeword, non-codeword, CEO and allied versions) dealing with the USSR and/or members of the former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia produced during the period 1 January to 31 December 1990.

The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked to do so. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. An additional search conducted during the investigation resulted in an additional 1,352 pages being provided to the complainant. However, the Complainant continued to maintain that more records should exist. In response, PCO identified a further 98 pages of records.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide the subsequent response to the access request by January 22, 2026.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for records related to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility project known as “Cedar LNG”, from as early as January 2020. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that ECCC did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Offices of the Primary Interest (OPIs) and the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to provide records and process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC issue interim responses for documents not requiring consultation and provide a complete response to the access request no later than March 16, 2026.

The Commissioner also recommended that ECCC develop processes and procedures to ensure that OPIs provide responsive records in a timely manner, and develop performance indicators to hold its officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to ECCC’s ATIP office.

ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders and recommendations and described how the recommendations are being implemented.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberation) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for financial statements for the leaseback of seven specific buildings. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions, particularly in light of the information relating to the spending of significant public funds. The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose the information at issue. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.