Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for a copy of the full Issue Detail Report for Food Complaint number 112063. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a).

The complainant also alleged that the CFIA improperly redacted the information in white (negative redactions) in response to the above-noted access request making it difficult to determine which portions were redacted. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate the information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Neither the CFIA nor the third party to whom the information relates established that information other than supplier names and internal process details met all the requirements set out in paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c).

The Information Commissioner ordered that the CFIA disclose all third-party information included in the report, except for the names of the third party’s suppliers, information describing procedural details, and specific process for weighing products. The Information Commissioner also recommended that the CFIA cease the use of negative (white) redactions, as required by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Directive on Access to Information. The CFIA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request sought all records concerning expenses incurred by the RCMP each year to provide security to internationally protected persons who visit Canada, including any available breakdown of these costs by visitor, from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. In response to the request, the RCMP provided a two-page summary of costs. The RCMP explained that the requested records were not identified and located because, in their view, it is highly likely that almost all the information would qualify for exemption or exclusion in accordance with the Act. The RCMP did not demonstrate that the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records. The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search for records and provide a new response to the complainant. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.