Decisions

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on two access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did not establish that the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is denied.

The complainant alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) as well as several other provisions of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for the entire CSC and Parole Board of Canada institutional file of a named inmate. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The records contain detailed, intimate and sensitive personal information relating to the inmate and other individuals. CSC showed that it had met all the requirements of subsection 19(1) when withholding this information. In addition, it showed, among other things, that it either did not receive or determined it was not appropriate to ask for the consent of the individuals to whom the information relates to disclose it, and that the public interest did not outweigh the invasion of privacy that would result from disclosure. As a result, CSC did not have to exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. The complaint is not 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 related to the creation of the position of Intelligence Coordinator and/or Security and Intelligence Coordinator in PCO between 1 September 1984 and 28 February 1985, including but not limited to the document 'Memorandum for the Intelligence Coordinator' signed by Cabinet Secretary Osbaldeston and dated 27 November 1984.

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, 187 additional pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a subsequent response to the access request by December 10, 2024.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for the following:

All documents, including but not limited to email and letter correspondence, research, studies, memos, drafts, decks and meeting minutes, etc. regarding housing space accommodation guides, housing space guides, space criteria, occupancy rates or capacity for house designs for reserve, rural, native or Indigenous communities from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Affairs/Indian and Northern Affairs Canada/Indigenous Services Canada from 1960 to 1990.

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. ISC was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all the records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) asked ISC to conduct a subsequent search for all relevant records. The first additional search again resulted in no records. However, the OIC asked ISC to conduct another search. As a result, 800 additional pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISC provide an interim release to the access request within 36 business days following the date of the final report and to provide the final response to the access request no later than 60 business days following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

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 constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on this access request.

The application is granted.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had improperly withheld information under subsection 13(1) (confidential information from government bodies), subsection 15(1) (international affairs, defence), paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement or conduct of investigations) and section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the unredacted copy of the “Nazi war criminals in Canada: The historical and policy setting from the 1940s to the present – prepared for the commission of inquiry on war criminals by Alti Rodal: September 1986” (the Rodal report). The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. LAC could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions. During the investigation, LAC provided a supplementary response to the request, disclosing most of the previously withheld information. In this disclosure, LAC entirely ceased its reliance on paragraph 16(1)(c) and section 23. LAC considered all relevant factors when it decided not to disclose the remainder of the withheld information.

The complaint is well founded.