Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for the results of Ross Harvey’s (Dr. Ross B. Harvey was a Suffield Experimental Station (SES)/Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) defence scientist from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s who worked extensively in both the Chemical Warfare and Shock and Blast programs) review of these reports. Presumably, he prepared a short summary of his recommendations for each report; and, documents detailing which recommendations were accepted and implemented by DRES management. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request and provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for correspondence from specific dates sent or received by PHAC employees at the level of Assistant Deputy Minister or above related to standing offer 6D063-204744 and BTNX, Inc. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

PHAC extended the time period by 255 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be August 26, 2024.

PHAC 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 PHAC did not establish that the extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid and PHAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered PHAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following receipt of the final report. PHAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with her order if no other unanticipated complexities arise. The Commissioner advised that, as indicated in her initial report, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the act.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) had improperly withheld information under 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) and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all official documents from the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG) asking for payment from Infrastructure Canada from January 2016 to March 2019. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary investigate the withholding of GST/PST numbers, banking information and information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Infrastructure Canada and SSLG showed that the information related to pricing and contractual relationships met all of the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) but could not show that any of the other withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) or subsection 24(1).

The Information Commissioner ordered that Infrastructure Canada disclose the information remaining within the scope of the complaint, other than the information related to pricing and contractual relationships.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time National Defence (DND) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information related to military equipment, weaponry and ammunition sent to Ukraine from 2019 to 2022. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) determined that DND did not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a). DND was deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

In an effort to assist both the complainant and DND in managing the expectations of completing the request within a reasonable period of time, the OIC contacted the complainant during the investigation regarding a possibility of narrowing the scope of the request. The complainant decided to scope out all email communications, which reduced the number of responsive records by approximately 20,000 pages.

Given the rescoping, DND indicated that could respond to the request within six months. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request on or before November 25, 2024.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing her 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) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complete source code for the ArriveCAN application. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CBSA provided evidence to demonstrate that disclosure of the source code could be used by malicious actors to either hack the application, pose as the ArriveCAN application in the App Store/Google Play Store or to expose a security vulnerability which would place the personal information of individuals at risk.

CBSA also provided evidence that it considered relevant factors such as the public interest in disclosure, the sensitive nature of the information collected by the application and the purpose of the Act when exercising its discretion pursuant to subsection 16(2).

The complaint is not well founded.