Decisions

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for correspondence from specific dates sent or received by PHAC employees at the level of Assistant Deputy Minister or above related to standing offer 6D063-204744 and BTNX, Inc. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

PHAC extended the time period by 255 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be August 26, 2024.

PHAC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a), in particular, that it had applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine a reasonable period for the extension of time.

Given that PHAC did not establish that the extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid and PHAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered PHAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following receipt of the final report. PHAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with her order if no other unanticipated complexities arise. The Commissioner advised that, as indicated in her initial report, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the act.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) 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 subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all official documents from the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG) asking for payment from Infrastructure Canada from January 2016 to March 2019. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary investigate the withholding of GST/PST numbers, banking information and information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Infrastructure Canada and SSLG showed that the information related to pricing and contractual relationships met all of the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) but could not show that any of the other withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) or subsection 24(1).

The Information Commissioner ordered that Infrastructure Canada disclose the information remaining within the scope of the complaint, other than the information related to pricing and contractual relationships.

Infrastructure Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time National Defence (DND) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information related to military equipment, weaponry and ammunition sent to Ukraine from 2019 to 2022. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) determined that DND did not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a). DND was deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

In an effort to assist both the complainant and DND in managing the expectations of completing the request within a reasonable period of time, the OIC contacted the complainant during the investigation regarding a possibility of narrowing the scope of the request. The complainant decided to scope out all email communications, which reduced the number of responsive records by approximately 20,000 pages.

Given the rescoping, DND indicated that could respond to the request within six months. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request on or before November 25, 2024.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing her order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for communications during a specific period related to designated projects in Western Canada, which involved the development of either a critical mineral mine or a metallurgical steelmaking coal mine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

IAAC extended the time period by 880 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be December 15, 2025.

IAAC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a), in particular, that it had applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine a reasonable period for the extension of time.

Given that IAAC did not establish that the extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid and IAAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered IAAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 23, 2025. The President of IAAC gave notice to the Commissioner that IAAC would be implementing her order and outlined the specific actions he is taking to ensure compliance, including increasing IAAC’s capacity to process the request, and engaging a consultant to optimize all ATIP processes while also harnessing digital tools to enhance efficiency.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complainant’s own deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile generated from a biological sample provided to the RCMP. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The RCMP showed that it met all of the requirements of this exemption. Specifically, section 6.6 of the DNA Identification Act prohibits the disclosure of the requested information.

The complaint is not well founded.