Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information in response to an access request under numerous provisions of the Access to Information Act. The request was for applications for legal funding at public expense and included information related to British Columbia’s (B.C.) Braidwood Commission on the death of Robert Dziekanski. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner concluded that some information did not meet the requirements of paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (c) (confidential information from government bodies), section 14 (federal-provincial affairs), subsection 15(1) (international affairs) and section 23 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the RCMP to disclose it. Of note with regard to section 23 is that the RCMP was also unable to show that letters from legal counsel to the Braidwood Commission were privileged information in any regard, including common interest privilege, raised by the RCMP.

In addition, the Commissioner concluded that the RCMP had not taken reasonable steps to seek the consent of the B.C. government to disclose the information that qualified for exemption under subsection 13(1), as is required by subsection 13(2). The Commissioner ordered the RCMP to take these steps and then, if it received consent, to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be fully implementing her orders.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) had improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(a) (government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request about the lease of equipment.

The complainant also alleged that PAPA had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to that access request.

Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PAPA could not show that the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).

PAPA showed it conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered PAPA to disclose the redacted information.

PAPA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

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 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for data analysed in the Sea Lice Science Response Report (2022/045) from January 2022 to June 2022. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither DFO nor the third parties to whom the information relates could show that the information met all the requirements of this exemption, in particular the parties did not establish that the information was objectively confidential or that certain information was supplied by a third party. One third party raised a new exemption, section 26 (information to be published), but did not show that the requirements of this exemption were met either.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DFO fully disclose the records. DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

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.