Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not respond to an access request for all records regarding the procurement of new handguns for the military, for the period June 1, 2020 to June 4, 2021, within the 30‐day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC had not responded to the access request when the 30‐day time limit expired on July 5, 2021.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a final response to the access request no later than the 36^th business day after the date of the final report.

PSPC gave notice that it would not be implementing the order. I must remind the Minister that if she does not intend to fully implement my order, she has to apply to the Federal Court for a review by the following deadline.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request for specific records related to strategic communications campaigns regarding managing perceptions about drones within the 30‐day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

DND did not respond to the request, being of the view that it did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Act.

The investigation found that the request met the requirements of section 6 of the Act and that, as a result, DND should have been able to process the request without the need for clarification. As such, DND was in a state of deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a complete response to the access request.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, failed to sufficiently identify which portions of the requested records have been redacted and on what basis specific information has been withheld. The request was for historical information about Warren Hart and his activities/services in Canada that were contracted by a government institution.

The investigation determined that CSIS used negative (white) redactions to sever portions of the requested records based on exceptions to the right of access, and, did not specify on the records at issue what portions of the records were being withheld under which exemption claimed.

CSIS claimed that marking where information was redacted and on what basis specific information has been withheld could itself result in harm.

The Information Commissioner concluded that CSIS failed to provide any cogent explanation of how the use of clearly marked redactions and exemptions on the records at issue could possibly reveal or enable anyone to decipher information that would warrant protection under the Access to Information Act.

The Commissioner recommended that CSIS: provide a new response to the complainant that clearly identifies which portions of the records are withheld and cite, for each portion, the specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Access to Information Act under which they are redacted; cease the use of negative (white) redactions; and, cease routinely citing the specific exemptions only in response letters, with the latter two recommendations being in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Directive on Access to Information.

CSIS gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all documents held by two named individuals that pertain to reports of, or deal with the general subject of, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Office of Primary Interest misread the access request text and also unnecessarily limited their search to a keyword search. The Office of the Information Commissioner requested DND to perform an additional tasking and search for records, which resulted in the retrieval of additional 11 pages of records.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND give access to all additional responsive records, unless access to them may be refused under a specific provision of the Act, and to provide a new response no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders.

The complaint is well founded.