Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) 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 a Canadian Forces National Counter-Intelligence Unit (CFNCIU) document titled "Defining IMVE", dated November 8, 2018.

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

The investigation determined that DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) to respond when tasked with retrieving relevant records.

The Information Commissioner determined that the delay in the retrieval of records by the OPI is completely unacceptable given its initial estimation that the document requested is only 6 pages long.

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

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) 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 “Report 002-18: The militia movement, the III%, and the threat to DND/CAF” and any associated documents.

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

The investigation determined that DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) to respond when tasked with retrieving relevant records.

The Information Commissioner determined that the delay in the retrieval of records by the OPI is completely unacceptable given its initial estimation that the document requested is only 13 pages long.

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

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had improperly withheld information under section 68.1 (journalistic, creative or programming activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions)

of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the number of paid subscribers to Gem. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner found that the number of paid subscribers to CBC Gem, even if it is related to CBC’s programming activities, also relates to its general administration. This means the exception to the exclusion is engaged. The Commissioner concluded that the information does not meet the requirements of section 68.1.

The Commissioner also found that, while CBC did identify possible harms to its competitive position or to ongoing negotiations, it did not demonstrate that there was a reasonable expectation that these harms could occur, well beyond a mere possibility. The Commissioner concluded that the information does not meet the requirements of paragraph 18(b).

The Commissioner ordered CBC to disclose the withheld information.

CBC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for emails sent to and from the Warden at Millhaven Institution containing the words “outbreak”, “covid”, “mask”, isolate”, “lockdown” or “Structured Intervention Units (SIU)” between April 19 and 25, 2021. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The investigation confirmed that portions of the withheld information such as names and contact information of staff and offenders for the purpose of COVID-19 contract tracing, performance appraisals, information related to intra-regional transfers and the names and birthdates of offenders, as well as details regarding an offender’s criminal history met the requirements of subsection 19(1). The Information Commissioner ordered CSC to disclose the information that does not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), such as the type of incidents in the situation reports. CSC 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 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), and section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for the agreement, land claim settlement signed in the year 2000 between the federal Canadian government and the Squamish band.

Neither CIRNAC nor the third party showed that the information met the requirements of the exemptions - in particular how there was a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of any specific information and a risk of harm, that the information could result in a reasonable expectation of interference with negotiations, or that privilege applies. The Information Commissioner ordered CIRNAC to disclose the records in their entirety. CIRNAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be disclosing the records.