Decisions

The complainant alleged that The Department of Justice (JUS) did not respond within the 30-day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act to an access request for all information the Department of Justice, the Prime Minister’s Office, Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the named employees and MP's have on Section 43 (S43) of the Criminal Code of Canada from November 1, 2015 to December 13, 2021. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined JUS did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the request records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by slow progress the reviewal stage of the access request’s processing.

The Information Commissioner ordered that JUS provide a complete response to the access request no later than July 19, 2024 or no later than the date on which the order takes effect in the event the July 19, 2024 date is not met.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for records from specific dates related to the operation and restrictions applied to determined aircraft, received and distributed by a specific employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Transport Canada did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the 30-day period.

The investigation revealed that the program area, Safety and Security, took three months to locate 148 pages of potentially responsive records.

The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following receipt of the final report. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with the order. The Commissioner advised that, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the Act.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for all documentation relative to the unidentified object shot down in Yukon Canadian airspace on 11th February 2023 and for the unidentified object shot down over Lake Huron near Canadian airspace on 12th February 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report. The Commissioner also made two recommendations: that DND develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that DND Offices of Primary Interest will abide to their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to their access officials and that DND develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to their access officials.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for materials relating to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped the above-noted access request with other requests to take the extension of time. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 2,404 pages of responsive records were received. The OIC noted that PSCP failed to demonstrate that it applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine the duration of the extension of time and to make 768 days reasonable and justified in the current circumstances.

Additionally, with regard to the allegation that PSPC improperly regrouped the access request with a related request to justify the time extension, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that PSPC would not have claimed the extension if it did not regroup the request. Therefore, the OIC concluded that the basis for the allegation under paragraph 30(1)(f) is not valid.

Considering these points, and how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) 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 all documents respecting House of Commons committee studies related to the business of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, from February 1, 2023 to July 14, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 5,782 pages of responsive records were initially received. It was also noted that, although follow-ups were initiated, one of CRA’s Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) had not yet provided the balance of their responsive records (approximately 4,715 pages) for review.

Despite the remaining work, given how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of National Revenue that CRA to issue a complete response to the access request by no later than January 8, 2025. In addition, the Information Commissioner made two recommendations: first, that CRA develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that CRA OPIs will abide by their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to CRA’s ATIP Office; and second, that CRA develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to CRA’s ATIP Office. CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order and has taken the recommendations into consideration.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) had improperly withheld information under 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) and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all official documents from the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG) asking for payment from Infrastructure Canada from January 2016 to March 2019. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary investigate the withholding of GST/PST numbers, banking information and information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Infrastructure Canada and SSLG showed that the information related to pricing and contractual relationships met all of the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) but could not show that any of the other withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) or subsection 24(1).

The Information Commissioner ordered that Infrastructure Canada disclose the information remaining within the scope of the complaint, other than the information related to pricing and contractual relationships.

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

The complaint is well founded.