Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b.1) (third party emergency management plans) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for user agreements to issue or accept emergency alerts through the national public alerting system since 2009. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate the application of subsection 19(1) or the information withheld on pages 1-12. Neither Public Safety nor the third party was able to demonstrate that the information met the requirements of the exemptions as the records consist of negotiated agreements and therefore are not considered to have been supplied to a government institution by the third party. The Information Commissioner ordered Public Safety to disclose the records at issue in their entirety, other than the information withheld under subsection 19(1). Public Safety gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) 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 the following:

“From April 1, 2021 all "Activity Progress Reports" regarding the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or any related "missing children" program as referenced in the attached records.”

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

The investigation determined that CIRNAC did not respond by the extended date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

According to CIRNAC, the delay was caused by “resource limitations”.

The Information Commissioner determined that the delay in the review of records is unacceptable as nothing in the Act allows CIRNAC to delay processing requests due to limited staff or other competing priorities.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request for various information relating to the Metis Nation in Canada, Treaties and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, within the 30day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

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

The investigation determined that the access request was too broad and expansive and was not specific enough that any targeted record or records could, with a reasonable effort, be identified. Responding to the access request as written would require LAC to undertake historical and legal research that goes beyond reasonable efforts to identify responsvie records. As a result, since the request did not meet the requirements of section 6, LAC was not required to respond to the access request and LAC was therefore not in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an extension for an unreasonable amount of time under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act, and that it improperly processed two requests as one. The request was for updated Consultation Agreement between Canada and the MNA and related documents from January 1, 2024, to May 20, 2025. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner concluded that the time extension taken by CIRNAC was unreasonable. In particular, a consultation with 12 pages of records was sent to the Department of Justice (Justice) with a response time of an estimated 90 days, based on Justice’s service standards. In the absence of any additional complexity, the Information Commissioner determined that the 90-day timeline was not justified.

The Information Commissioner concluded that it was not unreasonable for CIRNAC to treat the request as singular, in the circumstances of this request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence), and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for any reports or briefings, dated January 1, 1988 to January 31, 1989, prepared by the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) dealing with global warming or climate change, including any preliminary drafts, as well as the minutes of any meetings of the IAC where such reports were discussed.

The Office of the Information Commissioner concluded that the information did not meet the requirements of the exemptions, in particular that PCO failed to demonstrate that the information was obtained from a foreign government, or that disclosure of the information could result in harm to the conduct of international affairs or the defence of Canada.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the responsive records in their entirety and provide a new response no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.

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 Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for All documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from April 1, 2024, to the present, respecting allegations concerning the ethics of an individual in relation to their associations with other individuals and organizations.

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

The investigation determined that not all of the responsible Offices of Primary Interest were tasked for the responsive records. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. A search by an Office of Primary Interest that was not initially tasked, located 142 pages of records relevant to the request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide the subsequent response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the Final Report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party); and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The access request was for records related to a collision between a vessel and a seaplane in Vancouver, British Columbia on June 8, 2024.

Transport Canada could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions, apart from a limited amount of information meeting all four requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b). Transport Canada did not provide any information indicating that it had considered its obligation to exercise its discretion under subsection 20(6) to decide whether to disclose the information.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with 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 documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from July 25, 2023, to the present.

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

The investigation determined that one Office of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when it was 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 26 pages of relevant records being located and processed.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide the subsequent response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the Final Report.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing 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) (international affairs, national security, defence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for Joint Intelligence Committee Intelligence for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) [1958-63].

During the investigation, LAC provided two supplementary releases to the complainant; however, LAC maintained some exemptions on the basis that the information was provided to Canada in confidence by NORAD.

The Office of the Information Commissioner concluded that, for the purposes of paragraph 13(1)(b), NORAD is an international organization of states or an institution thereof.

The complaint is well founded, because not all of the information LAC exempted under subsection 13(1) and subsection 15(1) when it originally responded to the access request met the requirements of the exemptions.

An order is not necessary, however, since LAC subsequently disclosed some information that was previously exempted and since the remaining withheld information meets the requirements of subsection 13(1).