Decisions

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information relating to Microsoft Teams. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the time extension claimed for 390 days was unreasonable because the justification provided by ISED failed to demonstrate that there was a link between the reasons for the extension of time and its length or that ISED made a serious attempt to determine the length of the extension. Additionally, the investigation found that there was a significant delay before ISED began the processing of the request.

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 had every intention of implementing the order.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information under the following provisions of the Access to Information Act:

• subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence);
• 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);
• paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations);
• paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations); and
• section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)

This was in response to an access request for records related to the Canada Student Service Grant. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that ESDC did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

ESDC did not establish that the requirements of certain exemptions were met or that it had reasonably exercised its discretion where the requirements for discretionary exemptions were met. The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC disclose certain information and re-exercise discretion. ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order but indicated it intends to apply additional exemptions not raised during the investigation. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information on leases signed by PSPC that amount to over $500,000 per year for the years 2018-2022 in specific cities: Gatineau/Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal and Lacolle. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither PSPC nor the third parties established that the requirements of the exemptions were met. The requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were not met because the rent amounts were not established to have been “supplied by” the third parties, and the representations on the harm-based exemptions were too speculative to support a link between disclosure and a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose the records in full. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to a video posted to Facebook on June 18, 2024. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada’s Communications and Public Affairs unit identified that during the search for records, it had removed records deemed to be drafts, per its interpretation of the access request. As a result of the investigation, Indigenous Services Canada located 1,087 additional pages of records.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services process the additional records and provide a new response within 36 business days.

The Corporate Secretary 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 Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for “all records concerning Clerk John Hannaford's meeting with the official languages commissioner …”.

PCO did not demonstrate that the information exempt under subsection 19(1), that is, one signature and two initials, met the requirements of the exemption - in particular why the information would not be excluded from the definition of personal information by virtue of paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), who concurred that the exemption had not been properly applied. The OIC informed PCO of the results of the OPC consultation, asking PCO officials if they wished to release the information, rather than proceeding with an order. PCO did not respond. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the information. PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it maintained its disagreement with the Commissioner’s position but would release the information because it had received the consent of the two individuals.

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.