Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all documents relating to the course of action of Operation Aegis. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner concluded that National Defence did not meet its obligation to respond within the 30-day period and that it is deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3). The Information Commissioner found that the delay taken by the Office of Primary Interest, Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, to retrieve all relevant records was unacceptable.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of National Defence to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60^th business day following the date of the final report.

The Information Commissioner recommended that the Minister of National Defence develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that National Defence’s Offices of Primary Interest will abide to their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to the Directorate Access to Information and Privacy.

The Information Commissioner also recommended that the Minister of National Defence develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to the Directorate Access to Information and Privacy.

The Information Commissioner was notified that National Defence would not be providing a response by the date set out in the order, further stating that National Defence would be initiating judicial proceedings once the final report was issued.

The complaint it well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendation) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information related to the Canada Research Chairs’ Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Public Accountability and Transparency Requirements. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of paragraph 16(2)(c) was removed from the scope of the complaint.

During the investigation, SSHRC decided to also rely on paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) to withhold some information.

SSHRC showed that the information withheld under subsection 19(1) met all the requirements of the exemption.

SSHRC could not show that other information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d).

Information of a factual or objective nature also did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered SSHRC to disclose all the redacted information, except information that meets the requirements of subsection 19(1) and/or paragraphs 21(1)(a) and/or 21(1)(b).

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

The complaint is well founded.