Decisions

The complainant alleged that the 29,200-day time extension claimed by Library and Archives Canada (LAC) to process a request made under the Access to Information Act is unreasonable.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received the complaint on May 2, 2018.

LAC identified 780,000 pages of paper and microfilm records responsive to the request for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records on Project Anecdote.

LAC did not meet the requirements of a time extension under paragraph 9(1)(a); therefore, its time extension was invalid. In the absence of a valid time extension, institutions are required to respond to an access request within 30 days, which LAC also failed to do. Therefore, LAC is deemed to have refused access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is well founded.

On February 24, 2021, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine separate complaints about Global Affairs Canada (Global Affairs) missing the deadlines or taking an unreasonable time extension to respond to nine access requests made by the same individual under the Access to Information Act.

In four of the nine files, Global Affairs indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on their ability to process the requests.

Global Affairs has committed to providing a final response for each of the nine files by October 15, 2021, due to the significant amount of work that remains to be done.

All nine complaints are well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) 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), paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to a Request for Proposals (RFP).

The investigation revealed that ECCC did not exercise its discretion under subsection 19(2) to disclose publicly available personal information and seek consent from the individuals to disclose their personal information, where appropriate.

Where ECCC had withheld the evaluators’ comments on bid evaluation grids under both paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), ECCC showed that the requirements for paragraph 21(1)(a) were met, and that discretion was appropriately considered, taking into account the specialized nature of the field, and the small number of competitors.

ECCC and the third party were able to show that the requirements for paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) were met for specific sensitive content of the Response to the RFP, disclosure of which could indeed harm the third party’s competitive position in the market.

At the same time, the parties could not show that certain withheld financial and commercial information met all of the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), as absolute confidentiality is unreasonable when public funds are being spent, and some of the withheld information was publicly available.

ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would follow her recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two requests for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act (the Act). In its application, the institution submitted that the requests are vexatious, made in bad faith and are otherwise an abuse of the right of access. It also maintained that it met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the requests.

The Commissioner found that the institution did not establish that the requests are vexatious, made in bad faith or are otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request. The Commissioner also found that the institution did not establish that it fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act on the requests.

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

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on four requests for information under section 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the requests, and that the requests are an abuse of the right of access because the requester does not have a right of access to the information.

The Commissioner found that the institution not only did not fulfil its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, but it further failed to establish that the requests amount to an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner denied the application.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) was incorrect in stating that it could not process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The access request was for records related to a named employee including dates of leave, job grade, letters of offer and salary history. Because the records in question would be the personal information of a named individual who is not the complainant, ESDC did not process the records and claimed that they were outside its control. While the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) agrees that the access request is for the personal information about a named individual who is not the complainant, the investigation concluded that the records at issue are under ESDC’s control. As a result, ESDC ultimately agreed to process the access request. The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on a request for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the request - for emails and other records of communication of any employee, during a specified timeframe, that contain a specific phrase - constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner found that the institution not only did not fulfil its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, but it further failed to establish that the request is an abuse of the right of access. In addition, it was not apparent that the application for approval to decline to act was submitted in a timely manner.

The Commissioner denied the application.

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

Paragraph 30(4)(b) allows the Commissioner to refuse or cease to investigate a complaint when, having regard to the circumstances, initiating or continuing the investigation is unnecessary.

In this instance, the Office of the Information Commissioner received a complaint alleging that the complainant did not receive the documents in response to their access request in French.

During the investigation, the institution had the documents translated and sent them to the complainant. In these circumstances, continuing the investigation is unnecessary because the complainant has now received the documents in the official language of their choice.