Decisions

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to complaints submitted to ESDC’s Labour Program. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, ESDC conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist. ESDC advised that it intends to provide a supplemental release to the complainant.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC process the additional records and provide a new response no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report. ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the orders. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for All documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from July 25, 2023, to the present.

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

The investigation determined that one Office of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when it was tasked to do so. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. An additional search conducted during the investigation resulted in an additional 26 pages of relevant records being located and processed.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide the subsequent response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the Final Report.

PCO 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) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for Joint Intelligence Committee Intelligence for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) [1958-63].

During the investigation, LAC provided two supplementary releases to the complainant; however, LAC maintained some exemptions on the basis that the information was provided to Canada in confidence by NORAD.

The Office of the Information Commissioner concluded that, for the purposes of paragraph 13(1)(b), NORAD is an international organization of states or an institution thereof.

The complaint is well founded, because not all of the information LAC exempted under subsection 13(1) and subsection 15(1) when it originally responded to the access request met the requirements of the exemptions.

An order is not necessary, however, since LAC subsequently disclosed some information that was previously exempted and since the remaining withheld information meets the requirements of subsection 13(1).