Decisions

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request is unreasonable. The request was for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records on Communist Party of Canada activity and activists in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, from 1970 to 1984.The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC claimed an extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for 80 days and 730 days under paragraph 9(1)(b). The Commissioner found the latter extension, which LAC took to consult the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 4,985 pages of records, to be unreasonable. LAC could not show it had made a serious effort to assess how long the extension should be, relying instead on CSIS’s estimate of two (2) years as the time it would need to review the records and provide its recommendations on disclosure.

The Commissioner also found that there has been a significant disclosure of Canadian intelligence surveillance of Communist activities and affiliations throughout the 1970s and that the records are now approximately 50 years old. This led the Commissioner to question, as she had in her 2022 report on her systemic investigation into LAC’s consultation practices and other matters, LAC’s position that it must consult institutions on all security and intelligence-related records—thus, jeopardizing LAC’s ability to provide timely access.

Since the Commissioner concluded that the 810-day extension of time was unreasonable, and because LAC had not responded to the access request by the time the 80-day extension expired, the Commissioner ordered that LAC provide a complete response to the request no later than 60 business days following the date of her final report.

She also recommended that LAC include in its next semi-annual report on its progress addressing issues raised in the systemic investigation specific updates on improved timelines for consultations with other institutions.

LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order but indicated that it would include an update on consultation timelines in its next progress report.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for specific records related to a contract for decommissioning and demolition services at the Health Protection Building that was awarded to a subcontractor. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC did not acknowledge control over some of the requested records, however, the Information Commissioner found that the records, if they exist, were under PSPC’s control. Additionally, PSPC did not demonstrate that it had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Commissioner ordered that PSPC seek assistance and copies of records from a third party, provide a new response to the complainant and give the complainant access to any additional records it located. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all the emails of a named employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. PSPC failed to demonstrate that the access request did not meet the requirements of section 6 and was not, therefore, a request. In particular, PSPC failed to show how an experienced institutional employee would be unable to locate with a reasonable effort the emails of a single employee, even though the complainant had not specified a subject matter and/or timeframe for the emails. The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC provide a complete response to the access request. The Commissioner also recommended, since there turned out to be 50,000 pages of emails, that PSPC ensure its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures. Doing so, would help PSPC improve its record classification, organization and retrieval processes, and, as result, respond more efficiently to requests. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and recommendation. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions) and 18(c) (government scientific or technical information obtained from research), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 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 documents related to the lease or sale of all assets of PAPA from October 2020 to October 2021. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the investigation was limited to company names and amounts. PAPA did not show that the information met the requirements of paragraphs 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c), subsection 19(1), and paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) for any information related to company names or amounts.

The Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the redacted information at issue.

PAPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) had improperly withheld information under multiple sections of the Access to Information Act, including:

• Section 14: federal-provincial affairs;
• 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;
• Paragraph 21(1)(a): advice or recommendations; and
• Paragraph 21(1)(b): accounts of consultations or deliberations.

This was in response to a request for the recovery strategy for the whitebark pine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for the third-party information. ECCC did not show that it had made reasonable efforts to seek consent under paragraph 19(2)(a) nor did ECCC sever factual information it withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met. ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.