Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (international affairs or national security or defence), paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement or conduct of investigations), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee between January 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985.

PCO did not demonstrate that all redacted information met the requirements of subsection 13(1), subsection 15(1), paragraph 16(1)(c), or subsection 19(1). Regarding the application of subsection 19(1), the Office of the Information Commissioner consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who concurred that the exemption had not been properly applied.

The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose all information exempt under subsection 13(1), subsection 15(1), paragraph 16(1)(c), and some information under subsection 19(1). PCO did not give the proper notice required under paragraph 37(1)(c) as to whether they would or would not be implementing the Information Commissioner’s orders; instead, PCO submitted new arguments for withholding the information at issue. The Information Commissioner outlined that the investigation was concluded, and the issuance of her initial report and intended order under subsection 37(1) was not a further opportunity for PCO to provide new arguments or raise additional grounds for refusing access.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information on leases signed by PSPC that amount to over $500,000 per year for the years 2018-2022 in specific cities: Gatineau/Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal and Lacolle. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither PSPC nor the third parties established that the requirements of the exemptions were met. The requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b) were not met because the rent amounts were not established to have been “supplied by” the third parties, and the representations on the harm-based exemptions were too speculative to support a link between disclosure and a reasonable expectation of harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose the records in full. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to a video posted to Facebook on June 18, 2024. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada’s Communications and Public Affairs unit identified that during the search for records, it had removed records deemed to be drafts, per its interpretation of the access request. As a result of the investigation, Indigenous Services Canada located 1,087 additional pages of records.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services process the additional records and provide a new response within 36 business days.

The Corporate Secretary of Indigenous Services Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for “all records concerning Clerk John Hannaford's meeting with the official languages commissioner …”.

PCO did not demonstrate that the information exempt under subsection 19(1), that is, one signature and two initials, met the requirements of the exemption - in particular why the information would not be excluded from the definition of personal information by virtue of paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), who concurred that the exemption had not been properly applied. The OIC informed PCO of the results of the OPC consultation, asking PCO officials if they wished to release the information, rather than proceeding with an order. PCO did not respond. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the information. PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it maintained its disagreement with the Commissioner’s position but would release the information because it had received the consent of the two individuals.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and paragraph 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 records relating to a workplace fatality in Point-Saint-Charles on January 6, 2021. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation was resolved during the investigation.

Transport Canada and the third party did not establish that certain information met all the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information withheld under these third-party exemptions. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.