Decisions

The complainant alleged that the extension of time National Defence (DND) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information related to military equipment, weaponry and ammunition sent to Ukraine from 2019 to 2022. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) determined that DND did not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a). DND was deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

In an effort to assist both the complainant and DND in managing the expectations of completing the request within a reasonable period of time, the OIC contacted the complainant during the investigation regarding a possibility of narrowing the scope of the request. The complainant decided to scope out all email communications, which reduced the number of responsive records by approximately 20,000 pages.

Given the rescoping, DND indicated that could respond to the request within six months. The Commissioner ordered DND to provide a complete response to the access request on or before November 25, 2024.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing her order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for communications during a specific period related to designated projects in Western Canada, which involved the development of either a critical mineral mine or a metallurgical steelmaking coal mine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

IAAC extended the time period by 880 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be December 15, 2025.

IAAC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a), in particular, that it had applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine a reasonable period for the extension of time.

Given that IAAC did not establish that the extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid and IAAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered IAAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 23, 2025. The President of IAAC gave notice to the Commissioner that IAAC would be implementing her order and outlined the specific actions he is taking to ensure compliance, including increasing IAAC’s capacity to process the request, and engaging a consultant to optimize all ATIP processes while also harnessing digital tools to enhance efficiency.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complainant’s own deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile generated from a biological sample provided to the RCMP. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The RCMP showed that it met all of the requirements of this exemption. Specifically, section 6.6 of the DNA Identification Act prohibits the disclosure of the requested information.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complete source code for the ArriveCAN application. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CBSA provided evidence to demonstrate that disclosure of the source code could be used by malicious actors to either hack the application, pose as the ArriveCAN application in the App Store/Google Play Store or to expose a security vulnerability which would place the personal information of individuals at risk.

CBSA also provided evidence that it considered relevant factors such as the public interest in disclosure, the sensitive nature of the information collected by the application and the purpose of the Act when exercising its discretion pursuant to subsection 16(2).

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) (investigate bodies) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the investigation reports into the deaths of two individuals. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. 

The RCMP showed that it met all the requirements of these exemptions. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the RCMP considered all relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide not to release the information. That being said, the Commissioner continues to recommend that consideration be given to amending section 26 of the Privacy Act and section 19 of the Access to Information Act (sections relating to personal information), in order to give the head of an institution the discretion to disclose personal information about a deceased individual to a parent or close relative for compassionate reasons, as is currently possible in several provinces. 

The complaint is not well founded.