Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had improperly withheld information under section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all records related to the negotiation of the 1991 lease between Bourque, Pierre et Fils and the government for the Louis St-Laurent Building. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC applied section 23 in a blanket manner, withholding the entirety of the 96,781 pages of records, citing both grounds of section 23: solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege. Although some of the information meets the requirements of solicitor-client privilege, PSPC did not demonstrate that any information met the requirements under litigation privilege.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose certain and reconsider its discretion under section 23 where the requirements of solicitor-client privilege were met. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for records related to Taseko Mines Limited’s (Taseko) New Prosperity Project from July 2012 to March 2014. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b) or section 23 were met for certain information. Where the requirements of discretionary exemptions were met, ECCC demonstrated that it had reasonably exercised its discretion.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(d), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b) or section 23 were met. ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for Microsoft Teams (MS Teams) messages created between September 1, 2023, and December 6, 2023, containing a list of keywords related to ArriveCAN. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CBSA retains MS Teams messages for 30 days. However, CBSA only began processing the access request more than 30 days after it received it, due to it not being promptly entered it into its case management system. As a result, access to information officials, assuming all relevant records would have already been destroyed, did not ask program areas for records. Instead, CBSA told the complainant that no such records existed.

CBSA policy requires business-related information shared on MS Teams to be saved to corporate repositories before the 30-day mark passes. In light of questions about this during the investigation, CBSA searched these repositories and identified one relevant record, which it provided to the complainant. Regardless, the delay in asking program areas for records undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on the requester’s right of access.

The complaint is well founded.

No order was required, since CBSA disclosed the only record responsive to the access request.