Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) performed an incomplete search for records in response to a request under the Access to Information Act for the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan from August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that DND tasked the appropriate program area, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), with the retrieval of the requested records. However, the RCN responded that the requested records had been “lost”.

Despite DND’s Summary Investigation, DND failed to reach any definitive conclusions as to how or when the HMCS Shawinigan Tactical Communication log came to be lost.

The investigation highlights the implications of deficiencies in records management and the impact this may have on the right of access. However, there is no basis upon which the OIC can conclude that DND failed to conduct a reasonable search for the records sought or that responsive records could reasonably be found.

A copy of this report will be sent to the Minister of National Defence as a reminder of the importance of good records management practices.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement) and subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information on a specific RCMP vehicle from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017, as well as records of payments for the RCMP from the City of Williams Lake.

The RCMP applied paragraph 16(1)(c) concurrently with subsection 16(2) on the GPS coordinates of RCMP vehicle WL6100 from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017. The coordinates were recorded in 5-second intervals.

In its representations, the RCMP indicated that the release of the GPS coordinates could facilitate illegal activities, reduce perpetrators’ chances of being caught, and make law enforcement more difficult.

Having carefully considered the RCMP’s representations and having reviewed the specific responsive record, the Information Commissioner was unable to conclude that the information meets the requirements of paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 16(2). The Commissioner was not satisfied that the criteria needed to withhold information under paragraph 16(1)(c) has been met.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) missed the deadline for responding to two access requests under the Access to Information Act. The requests were for records related to the Prison Farm program run by CORCAN at Collins Bay and Joyceville institutions.

The complaints are well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of PSPC to provide a final response to both access requests forthwith.

PSPC gave notice that it would contribute its best efforts to complete both requests prior to March 31, 2022.

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act to portions of records in response to access requests for 64 separate immigration applications.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated 64 separate complaints on the same type of information and exempted in the same manner by IRCC.

The information that IRCC wanted to protect is located in the “History” field of IRCC’s GCMS Information Request: Application. The name of the field and its content were entirely redacted.

IRCC was initially of the view that releasing the History field and its content would negatively affect the integrity of all its immigration programs. To justify the use of paragraph 16(2)(c), IRCC provided detailed representations explaining the risks it alleged would result from disclosing the information at issue.

After many months of investigation and numerous attempts from IRCC to justify the application of paragraph 16(2)(c), the institution ultimately agreed to release the information at issue in its entirety.

The complaints are well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (Confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (Financial impact on third party) and paragraph 18(c) (Government scientific or technical information obtained from research) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information related to piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, the Creative Salmon Company Ltd., or jaundice syndrome.

DFO could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions. Concerning paragraph 18(c), DFO failed to show that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the exclusive rights of government researchers to publish the results of their research first.

Concerning paragraph 20(1)(b), neither DFO nor the third party established that the information was confidential information supplied by the third party. The parties also did not establish that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to result in substantial financial loss or gain to the third party or be injurious to its competitive position, as per paragraph 20(1)(c).

The Information Commissioner recommended that DFO disclose the information at issue in full, with the exception of personal information withheld under subsection 19(1).

DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act for all reports or assessments, including drafts, conducted by the Northgate Group in possession of any staff of the Enforcement Branch within ECCC.

The investigation confirmed that ECCC made edits directly to a draft report provided by the contractor, Northgate Group, thereby overwriting a contract deliverable and record that should have been saved to a corporate repository.

During the investigation, it was confirmed that the original draft report provided by the Northgate Group no longer exists as neither ECCC nor the Northgate Group retained a copy.

The direct consequence of saving edits over the original draft report irreversibly undermined the right of access.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to a request for an Index containing information about all the military personnel who served in World War II.

The investigation determined that LAC did not have the index sought by the complainant. LAC explained that World War II personnel records contained not only information on personnel who served in World War II, but also those who served in Korea and other military deployments until 1971. These records are paper-based, and were neither digitized nor used to create an electronic database from which a complete list of World War II personnel could be obtained.

While LAC’s access to information responses to specific queries may have given the false impression to the requester that an index of World War II personnel exists, LAC does not in fact possess a complete index of the number of Canadians who served in World War II.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for driving data, including Global Positioning System (GPS) data and driver logbook entries from NRCan’s fleet vehicles for three separate time periods.

The Office of the Information Commissioner’s (OIC) investigation determined that in addition to the search conducted by the Office of Primary Interest for records in NRCan’s corporate repositories, it was also NRCan’s responsibility to retrieve information from a data storage company, where the GPS data for the dates requested was stored.

NRCan conceded that the information stored with the data storage company, despite it not being in NRCan’s physical possession, was under its control for the purposes of the Access to Information Act. As a result, NRCan retrieved the GPS records for the time periods in question. NRCan also located additional logbook records responsive to the request, subsequent to an additional search. The logbook records as well as the GPS data were provided to the complainant during the course of the investigation.

The complaint is well founded.