Decisions

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.

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 Nation. 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.

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 to an access request for records relating to the application form for the issuance of an authorization under the Fisheries Act (Non-Emergency Situations) that was submitted by Ridley Terminals Inc. for its berth expansion project. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act. DFO could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions; in particular it did not show that all the information meets the requirements for paragraph 20(1)(b) or paragraph 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner ordered that DFO disclose all the withheld information, with the exception of the information that meets the requirements of subsection 19(1). DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would follow the order. The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on a 42-page access request, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access request is vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request 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 it.

The application is granted.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada 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 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 contracts related to the aggregate extraction operation occurring as part of the Albion Road Project (the Project) on land leased to the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA), from January 2019 to May 17, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The contract that is the subject of the complaint was between two third parties, the OIAA and Thomas Cavanagh Construction Limited. Even though contracts between third parties generally have heightened expectation of confidentiality, neither Transport Canada nor any of the third parties established that all the requirements of the exemptions were met for specific information.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain content of the contract. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

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 the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) had improperly withheld information under the following sections of the Access to Information Act:

• subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies);
• subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence);
• subsection 19(1) (personal information);
• paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions);
• paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual);
• paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information);
• paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations); and
• paragraph 21(1)(d) (plans related to personnel management or administration).

This was in response to an access request for records related to noise and vibration studies conducted for the Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Project. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that the VFPA had not met its responsibilities under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act to make every reasonable effort to assist them in connection with the same access request, asserting that the VFPA improperly provided documents that are not readable. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f) of the Act.

The VFPA and the third parties could not show that the requirements of most of these exemptions were met. The Information Commissioner ordered that the VFPA disclose certain information at issue and provide legible copies of maps, photos and tables to the complainant. The VFPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with 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.