Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged that Canadian Heritage improperly responded that some or all of the requested records do not exist. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The access request was for records related to communications by any Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) staff with any staff within Sport Canada during a specific time period, relating to weightlifting.

The investigation revealed that certain records appeared to be missing from the response package that had been provided to the complainant.

The investigation also revealed that the scope of the search was likely not broad enough to capture all the responsive records, and Canadian Heritage failed to provide sufficient representations to explain why its search was reasonable.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Canadian Heritage to conduct a new search and provide a new response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

Canadian Heritage gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada had improperly withheld information under section 14 (federal-provincial affairs) and paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for a copy of the "Final report: Mandatory Minimum Penalties. Recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Expert Panel on Sentencing Reform." The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Department of Justice Canada did not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions, in particular how disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of federal-provincial affairs as well how the report did not consist of a report prepared by consultants or advisers who were not directors, officers or employees of an institution or members of a minister’s staff.

The Information Commissioner ordered Justice to disclose the records in their entirety.

Department of Justice Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) refused to process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for various types of records relating to three companies from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2025. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.  

BDC refused to process the request claiming that the requester did not confirm their right of access. The investigation found that the request met the requirements of section 6 of the Act and that the right of access has been met. BDC conceded that the request meets the requirements of section 6. The Information Commissioner ordered BDC to accept the access request and to give the notice required by section 7; if access was to be refused, it must state in the notice the specific provision on which the refusal is based, as required by section 10. BDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for a telephone list for the CRA Headquarters International and Large Business Directorate indicating name, title, group, level, telephone number of each individual and reporting relationship. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that the CRA had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. 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 reasonable search allegation.

The CRA failed to demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 16(2)(c) were met because it did not establish that there is a reasonable expectation that harm would occur if the employee phone numbers were disclosed; that is, the representations received did not provide clear and convincing evidence on the likelihood of harm occurring.

The Information Commissioner issued an initial report setting out her intention to order the CRA to disclose the phone numbers withheld under paragraph 16(2)(c). The CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it had released the phone numbers to the complainant on March 11, 2026. The complaint is well founded.