Decisions

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request is vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request and made in bad faith.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request is vexatious. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access request.

The application is granted.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) 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 all documents respecting House of Commons committee studies related to the business of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, from February 1, 2023 to July 14, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 5,782 pages of responsive records were initially received. It was also noted that, although follow-ups were initiated, one of CRA’s Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) had not yet provided the balance of their responsive records (approximately 4,715 pages) for review.

Despite the remaining work, given how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of National Revenue that CRA to issue a complete response to the access request by no later than January 8, 2025. In addition, the Information Commissioner made two recommendations: first, that CRA develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that CRA OPIs will abide by their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to CRA’s ATIP Office; and second, that CRA develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to CRA’s ATIP Office. CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order and has taken the recommendations into consideration.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for the results of Ross Harvey’s (Dr. Ross B. Harvey was a Suffield Experimental Station (SES)/Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) defence scientist from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s who worked extensively in both the Chemical Warfare and Shock and Blast programs) review of these reports. Presumably, he prepared a short summary of his recommendations for each report; and, documents detailing which recommendations were accepted and implemented by DRES management. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined DND 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 ordered that National Defence 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.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for correspondence from specific dates sent or received by PHAC employees at the level of Assistant Deputy Minister or above related to standing offer 6D063-204744 and BTNX, Inc. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

PHAC extended the time period by 255 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be August 26, 2024.

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

The Information Commissioner ordered PHAC to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following receipt of the final report. PHAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with her order if no other unanticipated complexities arise. The Commissioner advised that, as indicated in her initial report, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the act.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (Infrastructure Canada) 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) and subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all official documents from the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group (SSLG) asking for payment from Infrastructure Canada from January 2016 to March 2019. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary investigate the withholding of GST/PST numbers, banking information and information withheld under subsection 19(1).

Infrastructure Canada and SSLG showed that the information related to pricing and contractual relationships met all of the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) but could not show that any of the other withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c) or subsection 24(1).

The Information Commissioner ordered that Infrastructure Canada disclose the information remaining within the scope of the complaint, other than the information related to pricing and contractual relationships.

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

The complaint is well founded.