Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 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 relating to a workplace fatality in Point-Saint-Charles on January 6, 2021. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation was resolved during the investigation.

Transport Canada and the third party did not establish that certain information met all the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information withheld under these third-party exemptions. 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) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (international affairs or national security or defence), paragraphs 16(1)(a) (investigative bodies), 16(1)(b) (investigative techniques, plans), 16(1)(c) (law enforcement, conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for minutes, records of decision, agendas or any other record of the meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Intelligence Advisory Committee for the period January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PCO could not show that it met all the requirements of the exemptions claimed and issued a supplementary release to the complainant during the investigation. The Information Commissioner concluded that the information which remains withheld did not meet the requirements of the exemptions, except for limited information which satisfies the requirements of subsection 13(1) but for which discretion was not reasonably exercised under subsection 13(2).

The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to entirely release pages 56, 61, 66, 72, 77, 80, 121, 123, 168, 170, 206, 208, 209, 212, 214, 233, 250, 289, 291, 309, 310, 313, 344, 345, 347, and 349 of the records, to re-exercise discretion as per subsection 13(2) for information exempted on pages 41, 45 and 351 of the records, and to provide a new response no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report. PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement her orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request for Government communications regarding former House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota’s recognition of Yaroslav Hunka at the President of Ukraine’s September 2023 address to both Houses of Parliament. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report. PCO did not provide notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the Commissioner’s order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SSC) 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 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 the full report relating to cloud economics provided by Gartner, Inc. between July and October 2022. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Although the parties demonstrated that some of the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), they did not establish that the remaining information met the requirements of any exemption or that no reasonable severance was possible in accordance with section 25. The Information Commissioner ordered that SSC to re-exercise discretion and to disclose specific information. SSC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada 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 data, notes, and correspondence within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, including observations and data, that reveals the impacts from human activity and coastal erosion that are damaging sensitive areas that hold high cultural significance, as well as records that lead to the decision to close the park. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Parks Canada was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by technical issues, staffing shortages, required consultations with multiple third parties, and the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy office to process the request in a timely manner. Parks Canada said it would provide a partial response on February 27, 2026, and the complete response to the access request on April 30, 2026, following the completion of necessary third-party consultations.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Parks Canada provide a complete response to the access request no later April 30, 2026.

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

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access request is an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did not establish that the access request at issue is an abuse of the right of access.

The application is denied.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) 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 records concerning parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, agreements between manufactures and the Government of Canada to support the establishment of these facilities, and the use of foreign workers in connection with these facilities, during a specific time period. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined ISED 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 a lack of responsiveness from one office of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISED provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days after the date of the final report.

ISED gave notice to the Commissioner that it has every intention of implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.i

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information related to submissions for using Anafranil / Altius Clomipramine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Both Health Canada and the third party declined to make detailed representations in support of the third-party exemptions. Both indicated that due to the passage of time, those exemptions no longer apply. The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose the information at issue. Health Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to commercial fishing agreements between DFO and Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) between the years 2000 and 2020. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. DFO and the third party did not show that some of the information met all of the requirements for paragraph 20(1)(b), and the risk of harm under paragraph 20(1)(c) was speculative. The Information Commissioner ordered that DFO disclose the information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) on specific pages, with the exception of the information that meets the requirements of subsection 19(1). DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access request is an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request at issue is an abuse of the right of access. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on this access request.

The application is granted.