Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 01

Date: 2022-01-17
OIC file number: See Annex A (64 files)
Institution file number: See Annex A (64 files)

Summary

The complainant alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act to portions of records in response to access requests for 64 separate immigration applications.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated 64 separate complaints on the same type of information and exempted in the same manner by IRCC.

The information that IRCC wanted to protect is located in the “History” field of IRCC’s GCMS Information Request: Application. The name of the field and its content were entirely redacted.

IRCC was initially of the view that releasing the History field and its content would negatively affect the integrity of all its immigration programs. To justify the use of paragraph 16(2)(c), IRCC provided detailed representations explaining the risks it alleged would result from disclosing the information at issue.

After many months of investigation and numerous attempts from IRCC to justify the application of paragraph 16(2)(c), the institution ultimately agreed to release the information at issue in its entirety.

The complaints are well founded.

Complaints

[1]      The complainant alleged that IRCC improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act to portions of records in response to access requests for 64 separate immigration applications.

Investigations

[2]      The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) investigated 64 separate complaints made by the same individual, on the same type of information, exempted in the same manner by IRCC.

[3]      After many months of investigation and numerous attempts from IRCC to justify the application of paragraph 16(2)(c), the institution ultimately agreed to release the information at issue in its entirety.

Subsection 16(2) : facilitating the commission of an offence

[4]      Subsection 16(2) allows institutions to refuse to release information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence.

[5]      To claim this exemption, institutions must show the following:

• Disclosing the information (for example, information on criminal methods or techniques, or technical details of weapons, as set out in paragraphs 16(2)(a) to (c)) could facilitate the commission of an offence.
• There is a reasonable expectation that this harm could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

[6]      When these requirements are met, institutions must then reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to release the information.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[7]      The information at issue is located within reports printed from IRCC’s Global Case Management System (GCMS) involving 64 separate immigration applications. More specifically, the information that IRCC wanted to protect is located in the “History” field of IRCC’s GCMS Information Request: Application. The name of the field and its content were entirely redacted.

[8]      In support of its refusal to disclose this information, IRCC explained that the History field and its content appeared ‘in error’ in the officer-generated GCMS reports due to a faulty IT system update. The History section would normally provide an electronic audit trail of certain activities in an immigration application.

[9]      IRCC was initially of the view that releasing the History field and its content would negatively affect the integrity of all its immigration programs, opening the immigration application process up to illegal “gaming” of the system. To justify the use of paragraph 16(2)(c), IRCC provided detailed representations explaining the risks it alleged would result from disclosing the information at issue.

[10]    For example, IRCC claimed that releasing the audit trail (i.e., lifecycle) of an immigration application that has been approved or rejected could reveal the issue(s) that resulted in a delay, and potential refusal, of the application. This information could potentially be used to manipulate, through misrepresentation, IRCC’s programs in order to yield a positive decision. IRRC rightfully indicated that providing misleading or false information on immigration applications is an offence under s. 127(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and s. 29(2) of the Citizenship Act.

[11]    Having carefully considered the evidence provided and representations made at that point, IRCC was informed that the OIC was of the preliminary view that it was not justified in withholding the information on the basis that releasing the information in question could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence as initially alleged by IRCC. It was the OIC’s view that IRCC had not established any expectation, beyond a mere possibility, that the disclosure of the information could facilitate the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, the causal link between the release of the information and the facilitation of the offense appeared too remote.

[12]    IRCC ultimately withdrew its reliance on paragraph 16(2)(a) as the basis for refusing access to the substance and contents of the redacted field and agreed to disclose the information to the complainant.

[13]    Although IRCC proceeded to release the entirety of the information at issue to the complainant in December 2020, the complaints are well-founded in that IRCC was not, in my view, justified in withholding the substance and contents of the redacted field under paragraph 16(2)(c) when responding to the request.

Result

[14]    The complaints are well founded.

Given that IRCC has released the information already, an order is no longer necessary.

Section 41 of the Act provides a right to the complainant who receives this report to apply to the Federal Court for a review. The complainant must apply for this review within 35 business days after the date of this report and must serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43.

Annex A