Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2022 OIC 02

Date: 2022-01-27
OIC file number: 3218-00397
Institution file number: A-2017-09269

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement) and subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for information on a specific RCMP vehicle from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017, as well as records of payments for the RCMP from the City of Williams Lake.

The RCMP applied paragraph 16(1)(c) concurrently with subsection 16(2) on the GPS coordinates of RCMP vehicle WL6100 from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017. The coordinates were recorded in 5-second intervals.

In its representations, the RCMP indicated that the release of the GPS coordinates could facilitate illegal activities, reduce perpetrators’ chances of being caught, and make law enforcement more difficult.

Having carefully considered the RCMP’s representations and having reviewed the specific responsive record, the Information Commissioner was unable to conclude that the information meets the requirements of paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 16(2). The Commissioner was not satisfied that the criteria needed to withhold information under paragraph 16(1)(c) has been met.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]      The complainant alleged that the RCMP had improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(c) (law enforcement) and subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) of the Act in response to an access request for information on a specific RCMP vehicle from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017, as well as records of payments for the RCMP from the City of Williams Lake.

[2]      Over the course of the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate the reasonable search portion of the complaint and only wished to complain regarding the application of exemptions to the GPS tracking records. As a result, the findings in this final report are only relating to the GPS tracking records of a specific RCMP vehicle for a period of 30 minutes on February 19, 2017.

Investigation

Paragraph 16(1)(c): conduct of investigations

[3]      Paragraph 16(1)(c) allows institutions to refuse to release information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to harm federal or provincial law enforcement or the conduct of investigations (for example, information about the existence of an investigation that would reveal the identity of a confidential source or that was obtained during an investigation, as set out in subparagraphs 16(1)(c)(i) to (iii)).

[4]      To claim this exemption with regard to the enforcement of federal or provincial laws, institutions must show the following:

• Disclosing the information could harm the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province.
• There is a reasonable expectation that this harm could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

[5]      To claim this exemption with regard to the conduct of investigations, institutions must show the following:

• disclosing the information could harm the conduct of lawful investigations—that is, investigations that are within the authority of an institution and are one of the following:
  • being conducted to administer or enforce an Act of Parliament or authorized under such an Act; or
  • of the types described in Schedule II of the Access to Information Regulations.

[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 RCMP applied this exemption concurrently with subsection 16(2) on the GPS coordinates of RCMP vehicle WL6100 from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017. The coordinates were recorded in 5-second intervals.

[8]      In its representations, the RCMP indicated that the release of the GPS coordinates would provide information that would confer the location of heavily patrolled areas as well as those that are not patrolled as often. Based on how long the RCMP vehicle was stationary in one particular location, the information would also identify key locations and patrol patterns. As a whole, if the information were to be released, the recipient(s) would know what time and where police presence is most active which –in turn- could facilitate illegal activities, reduce perpetrators’ chances of being caught, and make law enforcement more difficult.

[9]      Having carefully considered the RCMP’s representations, I am not satisfied that the criteria needed to withhold information under paragraph 16(2) has been met. The information consists of the location of one specific RCMP vehicle for a period of 30 minutes, on one specific day, four years ago. It is not apparent how this information – in and of itself – would allow someone to determine areas of high or low police activity let alone determine present day RCMP patrol patterns in the district in question.

[10]    Furthermore, in Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General R.C.M.P.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 779 (F.C.A.), the Court rejected the notion that the mosaic effect (i.e., the cumulative impact of disclosure) would prejudice the investigative process or future investigations. As such, the RCMP needed to demonstrate that the release of the specific information in question – in and of itself – could impact the enforcement of a federal or provincial law(s). While a request for a larger sample of the same type of information could maybe have resulted in a different conclusion, the case before me is very specific and limited in time.  It is also four years old. Having reviewed the specific responsive record, I am unable to conclude that the information meets the requirements of paragraph 16(1)(c).

Did the institution reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to release the information?

[11]    While I have found that the RCMP did not establish that the information satisfies the requirements of subsection 16(2), I should add that even if it had, I would have nonetheless found that it did not establish that its exercise of discretion was reasonable.

[12]    This is because the RCMP has also failed to explain the factors it considered for and against disclosure despite being provided the opportunity to do so.

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

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

[14]    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.

[15]    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?

[16]    The RCMP applied this exemption concurrently with subsection 16(1)(c) on the GPS coordinates of RCMP vehicle WL6100 from 9:40 to 10:10 on February 19, 2017. The coordinates were recorded in 5-second intervals.

[17]    In its representations, the RCMP indicated that GPS trackers were installed on RCMP vehicles to ensure the safety of its members and that RCMP dispatch accesses this information to send help to officers when needed. Releasing this information could allow individuals to use the GPS devices to track and harm RCMP members.

[18]    Having considered the RCMP’s representations, I am not convinced that that the criteria needed to withhold information under subsection 16(2) has been met. As mentioned above, the information consists of the location of one specific RCMP vehicle, for a period of 30 minutes, on one specific day, four years ago. It is not apparent how this information – in and of itself – could be extrapolated to determine the active location of a specific RCMP member.

[19]    Again, having reviewed the specific responsive record, I am unable to conclude that the information meets the requirements of subsection 16(2).

Did the institution reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to release the information?

[20]    While I have found that the RCMP did not establish that the information satisfies the requirements of subsection 16(2) I should add that even if it had, I would have nonetheless found that it did not establish that its exercise of discretion was reasonable.

[21]    This is because the RCMP has also failed to explain the factors it considered for and against disclosure despite being provided the opportunity to do so.

Result

[22]    The complaint is well founded.

Recommendation

I recommend that the Commissioner of the RCMP:

1. Release the GPS tracking information of the RCMP vehicle with fender number WL6100 from 9:40am to 10:10am on February 19, 2017.
2. Email a copy of the response letter to the Office of the Information Commissioner’s Registrar (Greffe-Registry@oic-ci.gc.ca).

On December 7, 2021, I issued my initial report to the Commissioner of the RCMP setting out my recommendations.

On January 4, 2022, the Commissioner of the RCMP gave me notice that she would be implementing my recommendations. On January 6, 2022, the information was released to the complainant.

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.