Decisions

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada improperly handled the request before opening the file.

The request was for all correspondence, for a specified period, regarding the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), specifically related to four areas of interest.

The allegations fall under paragraphs 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(f) of the Act.

Transport Canada was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was in large part caused by the failure of the principal Office of Primary Interest to promptly initiate the search and retrieval of responsive records for the access request. This delay was exacerbated by a building fire more than six months later that further delayed the retrieval of paper records. Moreover, electronic records were not retrieved and processed while waiting for paper records to become available.

The investigation also found that Transport Canada had not improperly handled the request before opening the file.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada provide a complete response to the access request no later 120 business days following the date of the final report.

Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order and would instead provide an interim response within 120 days, however, no reasons were provided to explain why it would not be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office 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 records produced by and related to Privy Council Office access request A-2012-00683, as well as all records that relate to the commission of and development of a 10-page “Lessons Learned” document commissioned by the Privy Council Office. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The onus is on institutions to provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Privy Council Office did not provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Privy Council Office to conduct a new search for records and to provide a supplementary response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the final report.

The Privy Council Office did not provide notice advising whether it would or would not comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information relating to Microsoft Teams. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the time extension claimed for 390 days was unreasonable because the justification provided by ISED failed to demonstrate that there was a link between the reasons for the extension of time and its length or that ISED made a serious attempt to determine the length of the extension. Additionally, the investigation found that there was a significant delay before ISED began the processing of the request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISED provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days after the date of the final report.

ISED gave notice to the Commissioner that it had every intention of implementing the order.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) improperly withheld information under the following provisions of the Access to Information Act:

• subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence);
• 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);
• paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations);
• paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations); and
• section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)

This was in response to an access request for records related to the Canada Student Service Grant. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that ESDC did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

ESDC did not establish that the requirements of certain exemptions were met or that it had reasonably exercised its discretion where the requirements for discretionary exemptions were met. The Information Commissioner ordered that ESDC disclose certain information and re-exercise discretion. ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order but indicated it intends to apply additional exemptions not raised during the investigation. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information on leases signed by PSPC that amount to over $500,000 per year for the years 2018-2022 in specific cities: Gatineau/Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal and Lacolle. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither PSPC nor the third parties established that the requirements of the exemptions were met. The requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were not met because the rent amounts were not established to have been “supplied by” the third parties, and the representations on the harm-based exemptions were too speculative to support a link between disclosure and a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose the records in full. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to a video posted to Facebook on June 18, 2024. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada’s Communications and Public Affairs unit identified that during the search for records, it had removed records deemed to be drafts, per its interpretation of the access request. As a result of the investigation, Indigenous Services Canada located 1,087 additional pages of records.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services process the additional records and provide a new response within 36 business days.

The Corporate Secretary of Indigenous Services Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.