Decisions

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 is vexatious and 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 information request is vexatious, or 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 Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 15(1) (national security) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information relating to “Active Measures ‐ The Soviet Bloc Practice of Deception, Disruption and Defamation”.

The extent to which information pertaining to the subject matter of the request is already within the public domain undermines claims that disclosure of the redacted information could reasonably be expected to result in a harm described in subsection 15(1).

In light of the above, and in the absence of any justification from LAC, the Information Commissioner found that LAC failed to demonstrate that any of the withheld information meets the requirements of the exemption.

The Information Commissioner recommended that LAC disclose all remaining withheld information. LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not implement her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (national security) and paragraph 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for a 1989 RCMP Security Service briefing on Hugh George Hambleton.

In reviewing LAC’s application of subsection 15(1), the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that a significant amount of information pertaining to Hugh George Hambleton is within the public domain. For instance, it is a matter of public record that: Hambleton, during his employment at NATO, provided classified documents to Soviet intelligence agents. Hambleton’s spying was uncovered in the 1970s, and drew comment from the media and members of Parliament, who debated the case in the House of Commons. Hambleton served time in prison in the UK and then subsequently in Canada.

The Information Commissioner found that LAC did not fulfil its burden of demonstrating that the information at issue, which it refuses to disclose, meets the requirements of the exemption.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act.

On September 2, 2020, CSIS received an access request for records pertaining to specific operational reviews concerning co-operation between CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). CSIS claimed a 240-day extension of time pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(b). This time extension was found by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to be valid; therefore, the extended due date for a response was May 31, 2021.

On October 12, 2021, the OIC received a second complaint, which confirmed that CSIS had ultimately failed to respond to the complainant by the extended due date.

To date, the complainant has waited for over a year for a complete response; eight months have passed since the expiry of the time extension. This lack of responsiveness is in clear contravention of CSIS’ obligations under the Act and undermines the credibility of the access system.

Under subsection 36.1(1) of the Act, an order was sent to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to complete the processing of the access request and provide a response to the access request by no later than 36 business days after the date of the Final Report.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) performed an incomplete search for records in response to a request under the Access to Information Act for the Official Radio Log Book of the HMCS Shawinigan from August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that DND tasked the appropriate program area, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), with the retrieval of the requested records. However, the RCN responded that the requested records had been “lost”.

Despite DND’s Summary Investigation, DND failed to reach any definitive conclusions as to how or when the HMCS Shawinigan Tactical Communication log came to be lost.

The investigation highlights the implications of deficiencies in records management and the impact this may have on the right of access. However, there is no basis upon which the OIC can conclude that DND failed to conduct a reasonable search for the records sought or that responsive records could reasonably be found.

A copy of this report will be sent to the Minister of National Defence as a reminder of the importance of good records management practices.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement) and subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information on a specific RCMP vehicle from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017, as well as records of payments for the RCMP from the City of Williams Lake.

The RCMP applied paragraph 16(1)(c) concurrently with subsection 16(2) on the GPS coordinates of RCMP vehicle WL6100 from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017. The coordinates were recorded in 5-second intervals.

In its representations, the RCMP indicated that the release of the GPS coordinates could facilitate illegal activities, reduce perpetrators’ chances of being caught, and make law enforcement more difficult.

Having carefully considered the RCMP’s representations and having reviewed the specific responsive record, the Information Commissioner was unable to conclude that the information meets the requirements of paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 16(2). The Commissioner was not satisfied that the criteria needed to withhold information under paragraph 16(1)(c) has been met.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) missed the deadline for responding to two access requests under the Access to Information Act. The requests were for records related to the Prison Farm program run by CORCAN at Collins Bay and Joyceville institutions.

The complaints are well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of PSPC to provide a final response to both access requests forthwith.

PSPC gave notice that it would contribute its best efforts to complete both requests prior to March 31, 2022.

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act to portions of records in response to access requests for 64 separate immigration applications.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated 64 separate complaints on the same type of information and exempted in the same manner by IRCC.

The information that IRCC wanted to protect is located in the “History” field of IRCC’s GCMS Information Request: Application. The name of the field and its content were entirely redacted.

IRCC was initially of the view that releasing the History field and its content would negatively affect the integrity of all its immigration programs. To justify the use of paragraph 16(2)(c), IRCC provided detailed representations explaining the risks it alleged would result from disclosing the information at issue.

After many months of investigation and numerous attempts from IRCC to justify the application of paragraph 16(2)(c), the institution ultimately agreed to release the information at issue in its entirety.

The complaints are well founded.