Decisions

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for communications during a specific period related to designated projects in Western Canada, which involved the development of either a critical mineral mine or a metallurgical steelmaking coal mine. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

IAAC extended the time period by 880 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be December 15, 2025.

IAAC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a), in particular, that it had applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine a reasonable period for the extension of time.

Given that IAAC did not establish that the extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid and IAAC is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered IAAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 23, 2025. The President of IAAC gave notice to the Commissioner that IAAC would be implementing her order and outlined the specific actions he is taking to ensure compliance, including increasing IAAC’s capacity to process the request, and engaging a consultant to optimize all ATIP processes while also harnessing digital tools to enhance efficiency.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complainant’s own deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile generated from a biological sample provided to the RCMP. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The RCMP showed that it met all of the requirements of this exemption. Specifically, section 6.6 of the DNA Identification Act prohibits the disclosure of the requested information.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the complete source code for the ArriveCAN application. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

CBSA provided evidence to demonstrate that disclosure of the source code could be used by malicious actors to either hack the application, pose as the ArriveCAN application in the App Store/Google Play Store or to expose a security vulnerability which would place the personal information of individuals at risk.

CBSA also provided evidence that it considered relevant factors such as the public interest in disclosure, the sensitive nature of the information collected by the application and the purpose of the Act when exercising its discretion pursuant to subsection 16(2).

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) (investigate bodies) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the investigation reports into the deaths of two individuals. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. 

The RCMP showed that it met all the requirements of these exemptions. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the RCMP considered all relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide not to release the information. That being said, the Commissioner continues to recommend that consideration be given to amending section 26 of the Privacy Act and section 19 of the Access to Information Act (sections relating to personal information), in order to give the head of an institution the discretion to disclose personal information about a deceased individual to a parent or close relative for compassionate reasons, as is currently possible in several provinces. 

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for records in files RG73, BAN 2016-00616, Box 39, File 7/10/A/3 - Canadian Intelligence Program / RG73, BAN 2016-00616, Box 39, Files 14/82 and 21/82 - Joint Intelligence Organization.

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that LAC did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that LAC provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order, taking into account workload that is already prioritized, including commitments to other orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for records contained in Ops 3 and Ops 4 files.

The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked to do so. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a subsequent search for all relevant records. As a result, 251 pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a subsequent response to the access request by December 22, 2024.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7. The request was for copies of the following documents described in briefing note M20101, “Chronology of Litigation re. CCEPIRSS”, previously released in A-2021-00209. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined CIRNAC did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The Information Commissioner found the delay taken by the Resolution & Partnerships unit to retrieve all relevant records, despite multiple follow-ups by its Access to Information and Privacy office, unacceptable.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request and provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report. The Information Commissioner also recommended the development of of performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable as well as proper processes and procedures to ensure that CIRNAC’s Offices of Primary Interest abide by their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion.

CIRNAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order. CIRNAC did not indicate whether it would implement the recommendations stemming from this investigation.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleges that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. This was in response to a request for emails, text messages and briefing notes related to CBSA’s list of companies that worked on the ArriveCAN application. 

The complainant questioned the fact that they received no text messages in response to their request. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) sought information from CBSA related to the program areas tasked to search for records, the parameters of the search and its policies related to the management of text messages. The Offices of Primary Interest most likely to have records relevant to the access request under their control, searched for records in the appropriate repositories and provided these records to the Access to Information and Privacy unit for review. It is reasonable to believe that text messages did not exist at the time the present request was made and/or were not caught as relevant.

The Information Commissioner concluded that CBSA conducted a reasonable search for records. The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for records from the Deputy Minister’s Office relating to funding or fiscal management of the Assembly of First Nations from January 1, 2016 to April 1, 2019.

The investigation identified deficiencies with the search, and determined that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to conduct a new search for records and to provide a new response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the final report.

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for internal and external records referenced in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Regulations Amending the Tobacco Products Regulations. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that 20,250 pages of responsive records were received. The OIC noted that information management deficiencies had resulted in a significant delay in the processing of the request. In addition, consultations within Health Canada, with other government departments, as well as with a number of third parties, would be required.

Heath Canada committed to responding to the request by July 17, 2030.

Considering the amount of time that had already passed without significant progress in processing this request and the overly long approval timeline, the proposed response date was found to be unreasonable. The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Health to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 7, 2026.

Health Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.