Decisions

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on a request for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the request - for emails and other records of communication of any employee, during a specified timeframe, that contain a specific phrase - constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner found that the institution not only did not fulfil its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, but it further failed to establish that the request is an abuse of the right of access. In addition, it was not apparent that the application for approval to decline to act was submitted in a timely manner.

The Commissioner denied the application.

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

Paragraph 30(4)(b) allows the Commissioner to refuse or cease to investigate a complaint when, having regard to the circumstances, initiating or continuing the investigation is unnecessary.

In this instance, the Office of the Information Commissioner received a complaint alleging that the complainant did not receive the documents in response to their access request in French.

During the investigation, the institution had the documents translated and sent them to the complainant. In these circumstances, continuing the investigation is unnecessary because the complainant has now received the documents in the official language of their choice.

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. The complaint centres on a request for an up-to-date copy of an inmate’s carceral file.

The investigation revealed that CSC neither retrieved nor processed the records at issue before applying subsection 19(1) to protect the requested information in its entirety. As a result, CSC could not legitimately maintain that the information meets the criteria for personal information under subsection 19(1). Moreover, without access to the records at issue, delegated officials at CSC could not demonstrate the circumstances that would allow for disclosure of personal information pursuant to subsection 19(2).

The Information Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness proceed with the retrieval and processing of the requested information in its entirety and issue a new response to the complainant by June 30, 2021. The Commissioner of CSC gave notice that CSC would implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations. The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on a request for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the request - for all internal correspondence of the institution over a period of seven years - constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The requester declined to make submissions in relation to this application.

The Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access. Specifically, the overbroad scope of the request, in combination with the small size of the institution, its limited resources, and the impact upon the institution’s ability to fulfill its mandate all weigh in favour of finding that the request is an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner granted the application.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act information related to mediation services provided by the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (CICR). Transport Canada applied paragraph 20(1)(b) to information contained in invoices billed by CICR. In its representations, CICR maintained that the exemption was properly applied. The Information Commissioner agreed that the third party’s hourly rate and the number of hours billed were properly withheld as it would reveal commercial information and CICR has consistently treated this information as confidential. However, the Information Commissioner concluded that the description of services billed, the dates of services, the subtotal of charges, the amount of taxes applied, the “total amount” and the “amount paid” cannot be withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) as they do not meet the criteria set out in that paragraph.

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

Paragraph 30(4)(b) allows the Commissioner to refuse or cease to investigate a complaint when initiating or continuing the investigation is unnecessary, including when the matter has already been the subject of an investigation or final report.

In this instance, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) has already investigated and issued a final report on an identical matter—that is, allegations that the institution did not conduct a reasonable search for records created in the 1990’s.

The OIC informed the complainant that it was considering ceasing the investigation on the basis that it had already investigated an identical matter and offered an opportunity to the complainant to provide representations. The complainant did not respond.

No evidence suggesting that this matter is different has been provided to the OIC.

In light of the above, continuing this investigation was unnecessary.

The complainant alleges that Health Canada did not respond to an access request for information regarding problems with implantable medical devices, within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act.

Health Canada claimed a time extension based on paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) and consulted nine (9) third parties, one of which opposed the release of its information and applied to the Federal Court for a review. During the investigation, the third party withdrew its application for judicial review. Health Canada failed to provide a response within the extended time limit and was deemed to have refused access to the requested records.

The Information Commissioner recommended that Health Canada provide a final response to the complainant by May 26, 2021.The Minister of Health agreed to implement the recommendation. 

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. LAC took a 425-day extension of time but failed to meet the extended deadline for a response. LAC was therefore in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3). LAC’s delay was partially due to a lengthy consultation with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Furthermore, LAC could not process the records, which were classified as Top Secret, as it does not have the infrastructure in place to do so. The Information Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Canadian Heritage find an interim solution to process this request and strongly urged him to implement a permanent and timely solution to allow LAC to handle and process classified records. The Minister acknowledged LAC’s need to have digital processing capability and informed the Commissioner that LAC responded to this request by redacting the records by hand. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) was incorrect in stating that it could not process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The access request is for emails to and from a named ESDC employee, containing certain keywords. Given the specific keywords, ESDC did not process the request because it claimed that the emails were not under its control. The emails are entirely personal in nature, and have no business value for ESDC. As a result, even though the emails are stored on ESDC servers, the Office of the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the requested records are not under ESDC’s control and therefore not subject to the Act. The complaint is not well founded.