Decisions

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.

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 paragraph 16(1)(a) (investigate bodies) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the investigation reports into the deaths of two individuals. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. 

The RCMP showed that it met all the requirements of these exemptions. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the RCMP considered all relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide not to release the information. That being said, the Commissioner continues to recommend that consideration be given to amending section 26 of the Privacy Act and section 19 of the Access to Information Act (sections relating to personal information), in order to give the head of an institution the discretion to disclose personal information about a deceased individual to a parent or close relative for compassionate reasons, as is currently possible in several provinces. 

The complaint is not 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 records contained in Ops 3 and Ops 4 files.

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. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a subsequent search for all relevant records. As a result, 251 pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a subsequent response to the access request by December 22, 2024.

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

The complaint is well founded.