Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to a request for time sheets of CRA employees from April 19 – May 3, 2023. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CRA showed that the time span of the information requested coincided with the period of the Public Service Alliance of Canada labour strike. As a result, the release of the User ID and PRI, if disclosed alongside the other time sheet information, would reveal an employee’s personal choice to either participate in the strike or cross the picket line.

CRA was not able to demonstrate that that there is a serious possibility that disclosing the remaining time sheet information would lead to the identification of the individuals to whom the information relates.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CRA disclose the information that does not meet the requirements of 19(1).

CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would partially implement the order.

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) and 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), 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 about the lease of equipment.

The complainant also alleged that PAPA had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to that access request.

Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PAPA could not show that the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).

PAPA showed it conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the redacted information.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the National Research Council Canada (NRC) had improperly withheld information on specific pages under paragraphs 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), 21(1)(c) (positions or plans developed for negotiations) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for records pertaining to negotiations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) regarding the conversion of overtime into leave following the December 2021 shutdown. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The NRC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(d), paragraph 21(1)(a) and paragraph 21(1)(c), but it did show that it met the requirements of section 23.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the NRC disclose some information originally withheld under paragraph 20(1)(d), and paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(c).

The NRC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on two access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did not establish that the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is denied.