Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all finished intelligence assessments produced by J2Director Strategic Intelligence (J2 DSI) organization dealing with Iraq during the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2003.  The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked to do so. DND was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked DND to conduct a second search for all relevant records. As a result, three additional records were located.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a new response to the access request on the 36^th business day following 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 Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for records in the following files (listed on page 173 of release A-2020-00042): - A220 Committees – General File 168 - Assessment Review Group (ARG) - A220 Committees – General File 168-1 - General - A220 Committees – General File 168-16 - ARG Record of Decision - A220 Committees – General File 168-17 – ARG Notes. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined CSE 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 both neither the review of records nor the developing of consultation packages to be sent the relevant institutions occurring in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CSE provide a response to the access request no later than the 72nd business day following the date of the final report.

CSE gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order and would instead apply for a review by the Federal Court.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for the records in the following files (listed on page 181 of release A-2020-00042): - A220 Committees – General File 280 - Intelligence Assessment Committee - A220 Committees – General File 280-1 – General. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined CSE 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 both the records not being processed in a timely manner and delays in sending consultation packages to the relevant institutions.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CSE provide a response to the access request no later than the 72nd business day following the date of the final report.

CSE gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order and would instead apply for a review by the Federal Court.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for records related to a previous access request to CSE (A-2021-000036) expanding the time of search to the date the request was received. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined CSE 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 two offices of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CSE provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

CSE 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) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all emails sent to or from PCO related to the "[Canadian Security Intelligence Service] CSIS Issues Management Brief" with subject "Defensive briefings to two Members of Parliament regarding PRC foreign interference activity," which was sent by CSIS to PCO on 2021-05-31. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Security and Intelligence Unit did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked with the retrieval of responsive records. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a second search for all relevant records. As a result, 11 pages of additional records were found within the Security and Intelligence Unit.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a new response to the access request on the 36^th business day following 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 National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for information relating to flights of Canadian government owned planes which landed in Lebanon. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined 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 a lack of responsiveness from a number of offices of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 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 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (negotiations by government institution) and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for a list of grants and contributions approved under specific ISED programs, including assistance type and other specific details. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

ISED could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 18(b), as the harm alleged by ISED already exists, and ISED did not demonstrate how further harm could be caused by the release of the information.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISED disclose the information withheld under paragraph 18(b). ISED gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order, while maintaining the exemption pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for correspondence related to the hiring process by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Corporate Services at Canadian Forces Base Suffield for the position of General Safety Officer. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

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

The Information Commissioner ordered DND to provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following 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 length of the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for all Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records relating to project Anecdote. The complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC extended the time period by 23,725 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b).

LAC identified 780,000 pages of paper and microfilm records responsive to this request, that will have to be converted into an electronic format.

LAC did not demonstrate why the request would be processed by a single employee, nor why the tasks were calculated consecutively rather than concurrently.

Furthermore, not all of the records have been retrieved and analyzed yet, so LAC was not in a position to specify the exact number of records that would have to be sent for consultation.

LAC did not show that the extension of time is for a reasonable period, having regard to the circumstances. Therefore, the extension of time is invalid and LAC is deemed to have refused to give access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is well founded.