Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence), and paragraph 21(1)(b) (account of consultations or deliberations). The request was for Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1989.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). The request was for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1966.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). The request was for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1963.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). The request was for Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1959.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). The request was for historical information regarding the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1982 to 1983.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies) and subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence). The request was for Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1981.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld under subsections 13(1) and 15(1), with the exception of certain specific categories of information.

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (international affairs, national security, defence), and paragraph 21(1)(b) (account of consultations or deliberations). The request was for Minutes of the Intelligence Advisory Committee from 1979.

During the investigation, PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that it would be disclosing all information which it had previously withheld, with the exception of certain specific categories of information, which it continues to withhold under subsections 13(1) and 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that none of the withheld information under investigation meets the requirements of subsection 13(1) or subsection 15(1). The Commissioner recommended that PCO disclose this information. 

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party), paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) and section 23 (solicitor-client and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for the settlement agreement between the Crown and the Squamish Nation in or about 2000 relating to Kitsilano Point and area, as well as all related maps and appendices. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither ISC nor the third party showed that the information met the requirements of the exemptions - in particular how there was a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of any specific information and a risk of harm, that the information could result in a reasonable expectation of interference with negotiations, or that privilege applies. The Information Commissioner ordered ISC to disclose the records in their entirety. ISC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not disclose the records.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) did not respond to the access request within the legislated 30-day period. The request was for information regarding whether ESDC is the holder of the information on the work done since 2014 in the grants and contributions program for workplace opportunities and removing barriers to equity, and the concepts it selected to receive funding. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. In addition, the complainant alleged that ESDC improperly requested additional clarifications to process the above-noted access request. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that ESDC engaged in communication with the requester on a number of occasions to clarify and/or narrow the scope of the access request. Upon review of the original access request, the OIC determined that sufficient detail had been provided from the outset. The numerous interactions between ESDC and the requester contributed to the delay in providing a full and complete response to the requester within the legislated time limit. As no extension of time had been initiated by ESDC, the deadline for responding to the request was July 3, 2023.

The Information Commissioner ordered that a response be provided to the requester by no later than August 30, 2024.

ESDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the Order.

The complaint is well founded.

In February 2023, the Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation to better understand and address the root cause of the growing number of access requests made to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

The complaint is well founded. CBSA should expect to continue to receive a high number of access requests for immigration information because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has not implemented an effective system that would allow client immigration information to be retrieved directly. CBSA must find ways to meets its obligations under the Act.

In February 2024, the Minister of Pubic Safety and Emergency Preparedness was informed of the Commissioner’s findings. A total of four (4) recommendations were made to the Minister and a response to the Commissioner’s recommendations was received in April 2024.

In May 2024, the Commissioner tabled a special report in Parliament pursuant to paragraph 39(1) of the Act. The special report sheds light on how the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) units of both institutions are being negatively impacted by IRCC’s lack of progress in introducing an alternative to access to information requests that provides clients with information they are seeking.