Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for documents related to a 2009 Ontario Regional Office workplace-based report compiled or prepared by a consultant. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Justice tasked the Regional Office and the Deputy Minister’s Office, both of which found no responsive records. The retention period for this kind of record is five years, and the request was made seven years past the disposition date. Justice concluded that, if the records did previously exist, they would have been destroyed.

Given the wording of the request, the OIC pursued the question of whether Justice would have been required to contact the consultant directly in order to conduct a reasonable search. Justice maintained its position that it would not have been reasonable to expect ATIP to task the consultant directly for the 2009 Report because: the business need was time limited due to the specific circumstances of the work conducted; copies of the records held or created under that contract should no longer be in the possession of any contractor; and the matter related to that contract was no longer active.

Accordingly, the OIC concludes that Justice conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security, defence) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for historical Canadian intelligence assessments records contained in specific files. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. PCO showed that it met all the requirements of subsection 19(1). However, PCO could not show that it met all of the requirements of subsection 15(1), in particular, how the release of the subject information would harm national security and/or the defence of Canada. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to disclose the records in their entirety. PCO gave notice to the Information Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(a) (government trade secrets, government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for final versions of documents mentioned in the response to a previous access request. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the complaint was reduced to remove subsection 19(1), section 23 and instances where paragraph 20(1)(b) was applied to withhold certain third-party information.

During the investigation, CMHC disclosed some information it had withheld under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b). CMHC showed that it met all of the requirements of these exemptions where it maintained them.

The third parties did not provide any representations and CMHC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that CMHC disclose all information at issue withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

CMHC gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.