Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) had improperly withheld information under the following sections of the Access to Information Act:

• subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies);
• subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence);
• subsection 19(1) (personal information);
• paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions);
• paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests, undue benefit to an individual);
• paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information);
• paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations); and
• paragraph 21(1)(d) (plans related to personnel management or administration).

This was in response to an access request for records related to noise and vibration studies conducted for the Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Project. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that the VFPA had not met its responsibilities under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act to make every reasonable effort to assist them in connection with the same access request, asserting that the VFPA improperly provided documents that are not readable. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f) of the Act.

The VFPA and the third parties could not show that the requirements of most of these exemptions were met. The Information Commissioner ordered that the VFPA disclose certain information at issue and provide legible copies of maps, photos and tables to the complainant. The VFPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for the following:

“From April 1, 2021 all "Activity Progress Reports" regarding the Tk'emlups Indian Residential School Survivor Project or any related "missing children" program as referenced in the attached records.”

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that CIRNAC did not respond by the extended date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

According to CIRNAC, the delay was caused by “resource limitations”.

The Information Commissioner determined that the delay in the review of records is unacceptable as nothing in the Act allows CIRNAC to delay processing requests due to limited staff or other competing priorities.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request for various information relating to the Metis Nation in Canada, Treaties and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, within the 30day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the access request was too broad and expansive and was not specific enough that any targeted record or records could, with a reasonable effort, be identified. Responding to the access request as written would require LAC to undertake historical and legal research that goes beyond reasonable efforts to identify responsvie records. As a result, since the request did not meet the requirements of section 6, LAC was not required to respond to the access request and LAC was therefore not in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is not well founded.