Decisions

The complainant alleged that Global Affairs Canada (Global Affairs) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to roundtable discussions held in 2010 regarding international education and the "Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students by Education Agents and Consultants", also known as the “London Statement”, as well as information related to the reasons why Canada chose not to endorse the statement. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that additional records that would have been responsive to the request ought to have existed but, through inadvertence, they had not been preserved. Global Affairs conducted additional searches and found additional records.

The Information Commissioner recommended that Global Affairs save all records of business value to their corporate repositories and remind employees of their information management responsibilities.

The Commissioner also ordered Global Affairs to provide the additional records to the complainant. Global Affairs gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the recommendations and orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 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. This was in response to an access request for records regarding an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) for the medicinal ingredient “tacrolimus”. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The scope of the complaint was limited to the dates on which specific correspondence was exchanged between a third party and Health Canada, which were withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) concurrently.

Health Canada and the third party did not show that all of the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) were met.

The Information Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose the dates within the records. Health Canada gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner of Canada gives notice under subsection 30(5) of the Access to Information Act that she has ceased to investigate seventeen complaints, pursuant to paragraphs 30(4)(a) and (b).

The Commissioner’s decision to cease to investigate these complainants is based on her finding that they are both vexatious and that further investigation is unnecessary having regard to all the circumstances.

The complainant alleged that the lengths of the time extensions taken by the institution on the seventeen requests were unreasonable. Upon initiation of the investigations into these complaints, it became apparent that the seventeen requests sought the same information as a previous request made by the requester, but broken down into smaller segments.

The previous request had been the subject of a complaint in which the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) had concluded that the length of the time extension taken by the institution was reasonable. The complainant did not apply to the Federal Court for a review of the subject matter of the complaint under subsection 41(1) of the Act.

The complainant alleged that the new requests were necessary in order to hold the institution to its commitment to provide regular interim responses on the original request. However, the institution provided evidence that it was in fact providing regular interim responses as per its commitment. In addition, the complainant made a comment during the investigation of the original complaint that if the OIC did not find in favour of the complainant, they would simply file new requests for the same information, in smaller and smaller increments.

In the circumstances, it can readily be inferred that the second series of complaints are directed towards circumventing the findings of the OIC’s previous investigation, while avoiding the recourse mechanism available to the complainant envisioned by the Act.

When a complainant does not agree with the result of an OIC investigation, the proper recourse is to apply to the Federal Court, under subsection 41(1) of the Act, for a review of the matter that is the subject of the complaint. The deadline to apply for that review is 35 business days after the date of the Final Report.

The Commissioner concluded that the complaints are vexatious and that it is unnecessary to continue to investigate these because they are substantively duplicative of the first complaint that was already investigated by the OIC.