Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information) and 18.1(1) (trade secrets of Canada Post; confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post) and paragraphs 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The complainant also alleged that Canada Post did not search for the records requested and/or that additional records responsive to the request must exist. The request was for records related to the decisions to change Iqaluit’s mailing service from PO Box addressing to civic addressing. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

While Canada Post provided some representations, it did not respond to the specific questions asked. It therefore did not provide evidence on key points. Canada Post did not show that certain information met all the requirements of subsection 18.1(1), specifically, that the information was a trade secret or that the information was confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post.

Canada Post also did not explain how it had conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Canada Post disclose certain information and conduct an additional search.

Canada Post gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for a 13-point list of specific categories of records held by a named subject matter expert. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, Canada Revenue Agency conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of National Revenue process the additional records and provide a new response within 60 business days.

The Minister of National Revenue gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all correspondence between a named subject matter expert and specific parties related to a 10-point list of topics. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, Canada Revenue Agency conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of National Revenue process the additional records and provide a new response within 60 business days.

The Minister of National Revenue gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.