The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld information under subsections 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) 15(1) (international affairs, security, defence), 16(1) (law enforcement and investigations), 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence), section 18 (economic interests of Canada), 19(1) (personal information), and 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for records contained in the files entitled: “Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) Mandate and Membership.” The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the course of the investigation, the Information Commissioner sought representations from PCO on the applicability of the aforementioned exemptions. PCO never responded to any requests for representations. The Commissioner concluded that the exemptions were not properly applied and ordered that PCO fully disclose all of the responsive records.

PCO gave notice that they would not fully implement the Commissioner’s orders and, while disclosing some of the information previously withheld, PCO indicated that they would maintain certain redactions.

PCO also provided submissions in its notice in an effort to bolster its continued application of these exemptions. However, the Commissioner’s initial report made it explicitly clear that this was not an opportunity for additional representations to be made. Therefore, the Commissioner did not consider PCO’s response to her initial report and the order stands.

The complaint is well founded.