Decisions

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.

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.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to Tetra Tech, including peer reviewer comments. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. Health Canada could not show that it met all the requirements of these exemptions - in particular, that the information was not publicly available, that it was objectively confidential, or that all of the information was provided by the third party, or that there was a real risk of competitive harm to the third party by the release of the information.  Health Canada did reasonably exercise its discretion to decide not to disclose information withheld under paragraph 21(1)(b). The Information Commissioner ordered that Health Canada disclose information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b).

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

The complaint is well founded.