Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all the emails of a named employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. PSPC failed to demonstrate that the access request did not meet the requirements of section 6 and was not, therefore, a request. In particular, PSPC failed to show how an experienced institutional employee would be unable to locate with a reasonable effort the emails of a single employee, even though the complainant had not specified a subject matter and/or timeframe for the emails. The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC provide a complete response to the access request. The Commissioner also recommended, since there turned out to be 50,000 pages of emails, that PSPC ensure its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures. Doing so, would help PSPC improve its record classification, organization and retrieval processes, and, as result, respond more efficiently to requests. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and recommendation. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and 18(c) (government scientific or technical information obtained from research), 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. The request was for documents related to the lease or sale of all assets of PAPA from October 2020 to October 2021. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the investigation was limited to company names and amounts. PAPA did not show that the information met the requirements of paragraphs 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) for any information related to company names or amounts.

The Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the redacted information at issue.

PAPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) had improperly withheld information under multiple sections of the Access to Information Act, including:

• Section 14: federal-provincial affairs;
• 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; and
• Paragraph 21(1)(b): accounts of consultations or deliberations.

This was in response to a request for the recovery strategy for the whitebark pine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for the third-party information. ECCC did not show that it had made reasonable efforts to seek consent under paragraph 19(2)(a) nor did ECCC sever factual information it withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met. ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for assessments of cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCAN application. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, CBSA disclosed portions of the assessments it had withheld under subsection 16(2) and paragraph 20(1)(d). CBSA continued to withhold other information under subsection 16(2) and also decided to exempt information under subsection 19(1) (personal information).

The Information Commissioner concluded that some of the information CBSA continued to withhold did not meet the requirements of subsection 16(2). She also concluded that CBSA did not determine, as is required when information meets the requirements of subsection 19(1), whether circumstances existed that would mean it would have to exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose this information.

The complaint is well founded.

The Commissioner issued an initial report with her intended orders. In response, CBSA provided additional representations in support of its application of subsection 16(2) and disclosed more records. The complainant indicated they were satisfied with the information. Therefore, no order was necessary.

The Commissioner reminded CBSA that receiving an initial report is not an opportunity to present new information or new representations on the outcome of the complaint. Institutions are required to give their best and full representations during the investigation. When the initial report is issued, the investigation is complete and the Commissioner has made her decision on the outcome of the complaint.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all communications between specific CBC and Twitter employees since January 1, 2018, which was prior to Twitter becoming X. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. During the investigation, the CBC disclosed some of the information it had withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 17 but also applied subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) to some of the remaining information withheld under section 17. The Commissioner concluded that this information did not meet the requirements of either subsection 16(2) or section 17. The CBC argued that disclosing the name and contact information of a member of its information security team would facilitate the commission of an offence by making it possible for hackers to access CBC computer systems. However, the CBC did not show how disclosing the information would reasonably be expected to lead to this result. In addition, the employee’s name and contact information were already available on LinkedIn and elsewhere online. The CBC also withheld the names and Twitter handles of several CBC journalists who were the subject of online posts the CBC had identified as instances of harassment and requested to be taken down, although it disclosed the content of the posts themselves during the investigation. The CBC argued that also disclosing the identifying information of journalists who were calling out online harassment could lead to these individuals’ being subject to retaliatory online attacks, resulting in psychological harm. The Commissioner found that the threats to individuals’ safety envisioned under section 17 could include psychological harm. Nonetheless, she concluded that, in this case, the CBC neither showed that the harm went beyond distress nor addressed the reasonable expectation of the harm occurring if the information were disclosed. The Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose the information withheld under subsection 16(2) and section 17. The CBC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.