Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records pertaining to engagement with proponents of the Ksi Lisims LNG project and the proponents’ engagement with Indigenous communities relating to the project.

The complainant decided to limit the scope of the complaint to the information withheld on pages 51-74 of the records, and decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate information withheld under subsection 19(1). As information on page 57 was withheld under both subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b), the OIC included this page in the scope of its investigation.

The IAAC could not show that the information on pages 62, 63, 65 and 73 met all the requirements of the exemptions.

The IAAC showed that the information on page 57 met all the requirements of subsection 19(1). The circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist and there was no need for the IAAC to exercise its discretion.

The IAAC showed that the information on page 67 met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).  The IAAC did not consider all relevant factors and did not reasonably exercise its discretion to decide not to release the information on page 67.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the IAAC disclose the information withheld on pages 62, 63, 65 and 73 of the records.

The Commissioner also ordered the IAAC to determine, on page 67, whether the circumstances described in subsection 20(6) exist and reasonably exercise discretion to decide whether to release the information.

The IAAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders.

The complaint is well-founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Shared Services Canada (SSC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for all records pertaining to the preparation of solicitation documents, approvals and decisions from SSC from January 1, 2020, to April 8, 2024.  This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner found SSC’s use of a benchmark for how many of the expected 15,000 pages of responsive records it could process a month (500 pages) to be unreasonable. She also disagreed with SSC’s decision to factor into the length of the extension anticipated delays due to problems with ATIP Express, SSC’s new access software. While acknowledging the institution’s difficulties, the Commissioner noted that the implementation of software must not unduly affect requesters’ access rights. Institutions must ensure that software is thoroughly tested and includes the necessary features to facilitate timely access before rolling it out, since poorly functioning technology can lead to inefficiencies and, in turn, delays. Given that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat approved institutions’ use of ATIP Express, and that this software affects the implementation of the Act, the Commissioner will monitor its performance closely to determine whether the existing issues are resolved and whether new ones arise.

The Commissioner found the extension of time to be unreasonable. She ordered SSC to provide interim releases every three months and a complete response to the access request no later than September 30, 2025. The President of Shared Services gave notice to the Commissioner that he would implement the orders. 

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee for the period of November 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The Information Commissioner found that PCO did not initially conduct a reasonable search for records. In the course of the investigation, PCO agreed to conduct a new search for records and retrieved additional records responsive to the access request. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, process all additional records located as a result of the new search, give access to additional records, and provide a supplementary response to the access request by November 22, 2024. PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. PCO issued a supplementary response to the complainant.

The complaint is well founded.