Decisions

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for records from 2014 onwards related to the National Priority Ranking Framework, the Priority Framework for Water and Wastewater Projects, and long-term First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plans - including internal correspondence. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) tasked with retrieval of responsive records may not have been the only appropriate OPIs to task, and that additional OPIs may hold responsive records.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISC conduct a new search for additional records that respond to the access request and provide a new response once the search is complete that either gives access to any additional records or identifies why no such records were located.

ISC responded that it would implement the orders and expand the breadth of its search and provide any additional records by July 31, 2023.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act (the Act) in response to an access request for information related to an Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal decision related to the death of a Canadian National Railway (CN Rail) employee. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The institution and third party did not demonstrate that all of the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were met.

ESDC showed that it met all the requirements of subsection 19(1) and section 23. However, ESDC did not demonstrate that it reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

The Information Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) and exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 23, taking into account all relevant factors for and against disclosure.

ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (national security, defence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request regarding submarine operations in the Arctic region. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. LAC could not show that it met all the requirements of subsection 13(1) and subsection 15(1), in particular, how the information in the record was obtain in confidence and how further disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm national security and/or the defence of Canada. The Information Commissioner recommended that LAC disclose the records in their entirety. LAC gave notice to the Information Commissioner that it would not be implementing the recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The access request was for any records relating to any and all access to information requests received by LAC regarding Project Anecdote. The complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC claimed a 1,095-day extension of time under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) to complete the processing of the request. If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be June 20, 2025.

During the investigation, LAC showed that it met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), in particular that the calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable, or that providing access to the records within any materially lesser period of time than the one asserted would unreasonably interfere with its operations and that the consultations could not reasonably be completed within 30 days.

The Office of the Information Commissioner concludes that LAC showed that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a) and (b). Therefore, the extension is valid and the due date to respond to the access request remains June 20, 2025.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown‐Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) had improperly withheld information under section 23 (solicitor‐client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to the ownership, sale, reversion or return of lands on or around the Bruce/Saugeen Peninsula, dating from the 1850s to 1980.

The investigation determined that CIRNAC exempted all of the responsive records in their entirety under section 23.

While CIRNAC acknowledged that the information was not subject to solicitor-client privilege, CIRNAC claimed that the records at issue may be subject to litigation privilege and cited several ongoing matters in the Federal Court of Canada as evidence of this.

The Information Commissioner concluded that CIRNAC fell well short of establishing that the records at issue are subject to litigation privilege. Moreover, CIRNAC failed to demonstrate that any of the records at issue were produced or gathered for the dominant purpose of the cited litigation or related litigation.

The Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations disclose the records in their entirety.

CIRNAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security, defence) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for historical Canadian intelligence assessments records contained in specific files. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. PCO showed that it met all the requirements of subsection 19(1). However, PCO could not show that it met all of the requirements of subsection 15(1), in particular, how the release of the subject information would harm national security and/or the defence of Canada. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the records in their entirety. PCO gave notice to the Information Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(a) (government trade secrets, government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for final versions of documents mentioned in the response to a previous access request. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the complaint was reduced to remove subsection 19(1), section 23 and instances where paragraph 20(1)(b) was applied to withhold certain third-party information.

During the investigation, CMHC disclosed some information it had withheld under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b). CMHC showed that it met all of the requirements of these exemptions where it maintained them.

The third parties did not provide any representations and CMHC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that CMHC disclose all information at issue withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

CMHC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.