Decisions

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.  

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all finished intelligence assessments produced by J2Director Strategic Intelligence (J2 DSI) organization dealing with Iraq during the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2003.  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. DND was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked DND to conduct a second search for all relevant records. As a result, three additional records were located.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a new response to the access request on the 36^th business day following the date of the final report.

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

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 all emails sent to or from PCO related to the "[Canadian Security Intelligence Service] CSIS Issues Management Brief" with subject "Defensive briefings to two Members of Parliament regarding PRC foreign interference activity," which was sent by CSIS to PCO on 2021-05-31. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Security and Intelligence Unit did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked with the retrieval of responsive records. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a second search for all relevant records. As a result, 11 pages of additional records were found within the Security and Intelligence Unit.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a new response to the access request on the 36^th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) 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 records related to a previous access request to CSE (A-2021-000036) expanding the time of search to the date the request was received. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined CSE 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 a lack of responsiveness from two offices of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CSE provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) 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 records in the following files (listed on page 181 of release A-2020-00042): - A220 Committees – General File 280 - Intelligence Assessment Committee - A220 Committees – General File 280-1 – General. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined CSE 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 both the records not being processed in a timely manner and delays in sending consultation packages to the relevant institutions.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CSE provide a response to the access request no later than the 72nd business day following the date of the final report.

CSE gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order and would instead apply for a review by the Federal Court.

The complaint is well founded.