Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals), subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all records regarding the work of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.

The complainant also alleged that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided to limit the scope of the exemptions allegation to the application of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) to withhold information on three specific pages of the responsive records.

The RCMP showed that it met the requirements of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. The RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records, conceding that it did not task all record holders or use all relevant search terms.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the RCMP provide a new response to the complainant and give access to any records located by additional searches, unless access may be refused under a specific provision(s) the Act. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), 19(1) (personal information) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for information related to the complainant on or around late 2000. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation confirmed that the information withheld under subsection 19(1), section 23, and portions of information withheld under subsection 13(1) met the requirements for exemption. However, the Information Commissioner concluded that some of the withheld information did not meet the requirements of subsection 13(1). She also concluded that the RCMP had not taken reasonable steps to seek the consent of the government bodies from whom the information was obtained to disclose the information that qualified for exemption under subsection 13(1), as is required by subsection 13(2). 

The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose the information that does not meet the requirements of subsection 13(1). The Commissioner also ordered the RCMP to seek consent of the government bodies pursuant to subsection 13(2) and, if given, reasonably exercise discretion to decide whether to release the information.

The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for entries found in the Service Administration Log. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada advised that at the time the response to the access request was provided, no records had been located. Indigenous Services Canada informed the Office of the Information Commissioner that 3,286 pages of records were received by Indigenous Services Canada’s access to information and privacy unit after the response had been sent to the requester.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada provide a new response to the complainant by May 31, 2025.

The Minister of Indigenous Services Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests or Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information related to the requests for proposals (RFP) by invitation DDPI-510-22-1543 and DDPI-510-22-1545. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The OPMC did not show that the information met all of the requirements of paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1). More specifically, the alleged harm is speculative in nature, and the names that were redacted under subsection 19(1) belonged to employees who received a document as part of their duties, and are subject to the exception at paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety. The OPMC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) had improperly withheld information under 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), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for records relating to Case No. 17‐05835. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for the third-party information or for an exchange of advice withheld under section 23.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the CTA disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met and to re-exercise discretion taking into account all relevant factors for the information it was permitted to withhold under paragraph 21(1)(b) and section 23. The CTA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for records related to Motor Vehicle Crash Test No. TC11-232, involving a 2011 Ford Focus, and conducted on March 7, 2012. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As per subsection 20(4), preliminary testing can be subject to exemption, if the requirements for exemption are met. Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly in light of the explanatory note proposed by Transport Canada. Transport Canada had originally withheld the records out of a concern that misinterpreting them could result in harm. The courts have consistently found that explanatory notes can minimise the risk of misinterpretation of records leading to harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose the records in full and include an explanatory note with the disclosure. Transport 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 improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for records related to Motor Vehicle Crash Test No. TC11-231, involving a 2011 Ford Focus, and conducted on March 15, 2012. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As per subsection 20(4), preliminary testing can be subject to exemption, if the requirements for exemption are met. Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly in light of the explanatory note proposed by Transport Canada. Transport Canada had originally withheld the records out of a concern that misinterpreting them could result in harm. The courts have consistently found that explanatory notes can minimise the risk of misinterpretation of records leading to harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose the records in full and include an explanatory note with the disclosure. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.