Decisions

The complainant alleged Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not respond to an access request by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all documents regarding the Copyright Media Clearance Program for the period January 1, 2018 to June 12, 2019. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act. PSPC had not responded to the access request when the extension of time expired on September 4, 2020. The issue of whether the extension of time was reasonable is moot.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a final response to the access request within 10 days after the day on which the order takes effect under paragraph 36.1(4)

PSPC gave notice that it would not be fully implementing the order.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request seeking records relating to the RCMP’s “E Norther” file.

The request identified the RCMP’s Legal Services Unit as potentially having records but the RCMP initially refused to task this area stating that responsive records would not be under its control. The investigation found that the records, if they existed, would likely be under the RCMP’s control for the purposes of the Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to confirm if additional records existed and, if so, to process these records in accordance with the Act.The RCMP gave notice to the Information Commissioner that records had been identified and that an additional response was sent to the complainant.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) had failed to perform a reasonable search for records in response to a request made under the Access to Information Act for all final decisions rendered pursuant to section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) from January 2018 until June 2020. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that the IRB tasked the appropriate program areas with the retrieval of the requested records but the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office had informed the Office of the Primary Interest (OPI) that only written decisions were being sought. This instruction ultimately reduced the scope of the request without the complainant’s approval. Despite the IRB’s justifications that audio recordings are only provided when specifically requested, the issue remained that audio recordings of final decisions fall within the scope of “all final decisions” and under the Act, a record means any documentary material, regardless of medium or form.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the IRB process all audio recordings within the scope of the request forthwith.

The IRB gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for all correspondence, including emails, Microsoft (MS) Teams messages, texts and phone messages, sent and received by Iain Stewart, between June 14 and June 21, 2021. The requester also specified that they would not “re-scope or limit” their request.

PHAC notified the complainant that, pursuant to paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b), it would require an additional 1,950 days to complete the processing of the request.

PHAC demonstrated that the time extensions were necessary and for a reasonable period, given the circumstances.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information related to the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) program including the Total Repayment figures related to several projects.

The scope of the complaint was narrowed to information related to twenty-one (21) third parties.

Several third parties and ISED provided representations in support of the exemption. However, neither the third parties nor ISED demonstrated that the information at issue met all of the requirements of the exemption.

The Information Commissioner ordered ISED to disclose all information at issue.

ISED gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Commissioner found that the institution had not met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. The Commissioner also found that the institution did not meet its burden of establishing that the access to information request is an abuse of the right of access.

The application is denied and the institution is required to act on the access request.

The complainant alleged that Shared Services Canada (SCC) has wrongfully refused to process an access request made under the Access to Information Act for records related to informal official language complaints.

SSC refused to process the access request as it did not believe it met the requirements of section 6 of the Act.

SSC asserted that responding to the access request as worded would require tasking every employee of the department to search for records, more than 8,300 individuals. In addition, the administrative burden placed on SSC to respond to the request would unreasonably conflict with core activities.  

The Information Commissioner did not agree, and ordered the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada to accept the access request as meeting the requirements of section 6 and to proceed accordingly.

SSC did not respond to the Commissioner’s initial report. It is therefore unknown whether SSC will implement the Commissioner’s order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for information related to applications for funding from The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (Niagara-on-the-Lake) between January 2020 and April 2021. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither the institution nor the third parties to whom the information relates provided evidence or representations demonstrating that the requirements of the exemptions were met.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the FedDev Ontario to disclose all information at issue.

The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario gave notice that it would fully implement the order.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has failed to provide records in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act, regarding Contract Number PWG560229 awarded on April 10, 2017 relating to Health Protection Building Demolition – Prime Consulting Services.

In response to the access request, PSPC indicated that it could not identify any relevant records, under its control. The investigation found that while the subcontracts and related records were not in PSPC’s physical possession, they were under its control for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the records should have been retrieved and processed in accordance with the Act.

The Information Commissioner recommended that the records be retrieved and that a response be provided to the complainant.

PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not implement the recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to job creation estimates and estimated jobs maintained figures for projects that received assistance during a specific time period between 2011 and 2018.

The scope of the complaint was narrowed to information related to eleven (11) third parties.

Only one of the third parties, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada (Toyota), provided representations in support of the exemption. However, neither Toyota nor ISED demonstrated that the information at issue met all of the requirements of the exemption.

The Information Commissioner recommended that ISED disclose all information at issue.

ISED gave notice that it would not fully implement the recommendation and maintains that some information related to Toyota would continue to be withheld pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c).

The complaint is well founded.