Decisions

The complainant alleged that Ingenium – Canada’s Museums of Science and Innovation (Ingenium) improperly withheld information under section 14 (federal-provincial affairs), paragraphs 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations), 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), 18(d) (government financial interests) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to the loan of objects for the exhibit "Autopsy of a Murder." The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of subsection 19(1) to withhold signatures was removed from the scope of the complaint.

During the investigation, Ingenium decided to no longer rely on paragraph 16(1)(c) to withhold information. Ingenium also decided to disclose information that it had withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d), and provided additional information to assist the complainant in interpreting the records received. Given these efforts, paragraphs 18(b) and 18(d) and subsection 19(1) were no longer at issue.

During the investigation, Ingenium invoked paragraph 68(c) (material placed by others in certain institutions). This exclusion was applied concurrently with section 14 to withhold photographs.

Ingenium did not show that the information met the requirements of paragraph 68(c). In addition, Ingenium did not show that the information met all the requirements of section 14, in particular Ingenium did not show that, if disclosed, the information could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Ingenium disclose the records. Ingenium gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Health Canada took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information concerning an application for religious exemption to serve ayahuasca under the provisions of section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

Health Canada claimed a 1,000-day extension of time under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) to complete the processing of the request. If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be December 19, 2025.

During the investigation, Health Canada showed that it met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), in particular that the calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable, that providing access to the records within any materially lesser period of time than the one asserted would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and that the consultations could not reasonably be completed within 30 days.

Health Canada demonstrated that the extension was reasonable and the due date to respond to the access request remains December 19, 2025. The Information Commissioner invited the complainant and Health Canada to collaborate to reduce the scope of the request so that fewer records will need to be processed and a response to the request could be released sooner.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleges that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. This was in response to a request for any assessments of cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCan application.

The complainant questioned the fact that they have received no information regarding specific named companies and/or expenses which they felt should have been found in the documents received, given the subject of their access request.

The OIC sought information from CBSA related to the program areas tasked to search for records and the parameters of the search. The OPI most likely to have records relevant to the access request under their control, searched for records in the appropriate repositories and provided these records to the Access to Information and Privacy unit for processing. As a result, the Information Commissioner concluded that CBSA conducted a reasonable search for records.

The complaint is not well founded.