Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) [international affairs and national security] and 19(1) [personal information].  The request was for historical information regarding the Intelligence Advisory Committee.

The investigation determined that the withheld information did not meet the requirements of both subsections 15(1) and 19(1). As a result, the institution undertook a re-review of the exemptions and undertook two (2) separate supplementary responses in which additional information, previously withheld, was disclosed to the complainant.

Following the institution’s second supplementary response, the complainant narrowed the scope of their complaint to only the institution’s reliance on subsection 15(1) on several specific pages of responsive records.

The institution has subsequently proposed a third supplementary response to the complainant in which they have agreed to disclose additional information previously withheld, however, portions would still remain exempt pursuant to subsection 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that the remaining withheld information does not meet the requirements of subsection 15(1), particularly with regard to the issue of harm since the injury that may result in disclosing the information is not apparent.

The Commissioner recommended that DND disclose all of the information that remains withheld under subsection 15(1).

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well-founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for copies of all of Canada's School Narratives, including supporting documents and document lists, as disclosed as part of the Independent Assessment Process. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that CIRNAC access officials identified that records existed but refused to process them, stating that the records are confidential and that processing them would require a minimum of 12 months to complete, given existing priorities.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, and provide a new response to the access request no later than the 60th business day 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 National Defence did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all documents related to a selection process of Steward/Command Master Sailor to the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that not all relevant Offices of Primary Interest were tasked with retrieval of responsive records. In addition, the taskings were not clear and did not include all pertinent keywords. National Defence was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records that fell within the scope of the access request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, which would include tasking specified individuals and provide a new response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

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 related to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Mental Health Counselling benefit, including the “detailed review” of how services are delivered and associated expenditure decisions; proposals to fund community mental wellness projects outside of Benefits Program authorities, and the "risk-based review to improve financial controls and management practices across all regions".

During the investigation, ISC indicated that the “detailed review” was conducted verbally. However, given that the term “detailed review” came from a Briefing Note prepared by ISC, it was reasonable to conclude that the term “detailed review” was significant, and that some responsive documentation would exist. The OIC also questioned why no records were found relating to parts 2 and 3 of the request.

ISC advised the OIC that the subject matter experts and records holders originally tasked with the search, “searched their records with a broader lens in terms of scope and timeframe”. ISC confirmed that these additional efforts generated at least 170 pages of documents that were not found initially and that those records are now being triaged and reviewed.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISC complete the retrieval of the records identified by ISC as responsive to the request and provide a new response to the complainant no later than the 36^th business day after the effective date of the order. ISC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to Dukoral, excluding product monographs. The complaint falls within 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) to withhold information, or any information about the production process or composition of Dukoral.

The institution and the third party did not demonstrate that all of the information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c) met the requirements of these exemptions.

Certain information also did not meet the requirements of paragraph 21(1)(a), including factual information contained in emails.

The institution showed that the information withheld under section 23 met all the requirements of this exemption.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose specific information withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a), 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c).

Health Canada gave notice that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.