Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals), subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), 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 request was for all records regarding the work of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.

The complainant also alleged that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided to limit the scope of the exemptions allegation to the application of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) to withhold information on three specific pages of the responsive records.

The RCMP showed that it met the requirements of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. The RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records, conceding that it did not task all record holders or use all relevant search terms.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the RCMP provide a new response to the complainant and give access to any records located by additional searches, unless access may be refused under a specific provision(s) the Act. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), 19(1) (personal information) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for information related to the complainant on or around late 2000. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation confirmed that the information withheld under subsection 19(1), section 23, and portions of information withheld under subsection 13(1) met the requirements for exemption. However, the Information Commissioner concluded that some of the withheld information did not meet the requirements of subsection 13(1). She also concluded that the RCMP had not taken reasonable steps to seek the consent of the government bodies from whom the information was obtained to disclose the information that qualified for exemption under subsection 13(1), as is required by subsection 13(2). 

The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to disclose the information that does not meet the requirements of subsection 13(1). The Commissioner also ordered the RCMP to seek consent of the government bodies pursuant to subsection 13(2) and, if given, reasonably exercise discretion to decide whether to release the information.

The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.