Decisions

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) had improperly withheld information under multiple sections of the Access to Information Act, including:

• Section 14: federal-provincial affairs;
• 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;
• Paragraph 21(1)(a): advice or recommendations; and
• Paragraph 21(1)(b): accounts of consultations or deliberations.

This was in response to a request for the recovery strategy for the whitebark pine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for the third-party information. ECCC did not show that it had made reasonable efforts to seek consent under paragraph 19(2)(a) nor did ECCC sever factual information it withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions 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 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all communications between specific CBC and Twitter employees since January 1, 2018, which was prior to Twitter becoming X. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. During the investigation, the CBC disclosed some of the information it had withheld under subsection 19(1) and section 17 but also applied subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) to some of the remaining information withheld under section 17. The Commissioner concluded that this information did not meet the requirements of either subsection 16(2) or section 17. The CBC argued that disclosing the name and contact information of a member of its information security team would facilitate the commission of an offence by making it possible for hackers to access CBC computer systems. However, the CBC did not show how disclosing the information would reasonably be expected to lead to this result. In addition, the employee’s name and contact information were already available on LinkedIn and elsewhere online. The CBC also withheld the names and Twitter handles of several CBC journalists who were the subject of online posts the CBC had identified as instances of harassment and requested to be taken down, although it disclosed the content of the posts themselves during the investigation. The CBC argued that also disclosing the identifying information of journalists who were calling out online harassment could lead to these individuals’ being subject to retaliatory online attacks, resulting in psychological harm. The Commissioner found that the threats to individuals’ safety envisioned under section 17 could include psychological harm. Nonetheless, she concluded that, in this case, the CBC neither showed that the harm went beyond distress nor addressed the reasonable expectation of the harm occurring if the information were disclosed. The Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose the information withheld under subsection 16(2) and section 17. The CBC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

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 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.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for documents relating to the impact of campfires on air quality. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Health Canada withheld the names of third parties and short texts about them under paragraph 20(1)(c). The third parties did not demonstrate that general and innocuous information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c). Health Canada agreed to disclose the information following an order issued by the Information Commissioner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose specific information at issue.

Health Canada gave notice that it would disclose specific pages in accordance with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement, conduct of investigations), subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for a copy of the Final Report of the Investigation and analysis of the accidental death of a named individual who died at a Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) railway yard. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of the applied exemptions were met for certain information. Although CP asserted that additional exemptions under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) apply to the information related to CP, the third party did not met its burden of showing that the requirements of these exemptions were met.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information where the parties had not demonstrated that the requirements of the exemptions were met. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information in response to an access request under numerous provisions of the Access to Information Act. The request was for applications for legal funding at public expense and included information related to British Columbia’s (B.C.) Braidwood Commission on the death of Robert Dziekanski. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner concluded that some information did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (c) (confidential information from government bodies), section 14 (federal-provincial affairs), subsection 15(1) (international affairs) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the RCMP to disclose it. Of note with regard to section 23 is that the RCMP was also unable to show that letters from legal counsel to the Braidwood Commission were privileged information in any regard, including common interest privilege, raised by the RCMP.

In addition, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP had not taken reasonable steps to seek the consent of the B.C. government to disclose the information that qualified for exemption under subsection 13(1), as is required by subsection 13(2). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to take these steps and then, if it received consent, to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be fully implementing her orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to a request for time sheets of CRA employees from April 19 – May 3, 2023. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CRA showed that the time span of the information requested coincided with the period of the Public Service Alliance of Canada labour strike. As a result, the release of the User ID and PRI, if disclosed alongside the other time sheet information, would reveal an employee’s personal choice to either participate in the strike or cross the picket line.

CRA was not able to demonstrate that that there is a serious possibility that disclosing the remaining time sheet information would lead to the identification of the individuals to whom the information relates.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CRA disclose the information that does not meet the requirements of 19(1).

CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would partially implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request about the lease of equipment.

The complainant also alleged that PAPA had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to that access request.

Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PAPA could not show that the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).

PAPA showed it conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the redacted information.

PAPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.