Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND), when responding to a request under the Access to Information Act, had improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) [international affairs and national security] and 19(1) [personal information].  The request was for historical information regarding the Intelligence Advisory Committee.

The investigation determined that the withheld information did not meet the requirements of both subsections 15(1) and 19(1). As a result, the institution undertook a re-review of the exemptions and undertook two (2) separate supplementary responses in which additional information, previously withheld, was disclosed to the complainant.

Following the institution’s second supplementary response, the complainant narrowed the scope of their complaint to only the institution’s reliance on subsection 15(1) on several specific pages of responsive records.

The institution has subsequently proposed a third supplementary response to the complainant in which they have agreed to disclose additional information previously withheld, however, portions would still remain exempt pursuant to subsection 15(1).

The Information Commissioner concluded that the remaining withheld information does not meet the requirements of subsection 15(1), particularly with regard to the issue of harm since the injury that may result in disclosing the information is not apparent.

The Commissioner recommended that DND disclose all of the information that remains withheld under subsection 15(1).

The institution gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing her recommendation.

The complaint is well-founded.

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for copies of all of Canada's School Narratives, including supporting documents and document lists, as disclosed as part of the Independent Assessment Process. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that CIRNAC access officials identified that records existed but refused to process them, stating that the records are confidential and that processing them would require a minimum of 12 months to complete, given existing priorities.

The Information Commissioner ordered that CIRNAC complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, and provide a new response to the access request no later than the 60th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for all documents related to a selection process of Steward/Command Master Sailor to the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that not all relevant Offices of Primary Interest were tasked with retrieval of responsive records. In addition, the taskings were not clear and did not include all pertinent keywords. National Defence was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for records that fell within the scope of the access request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, which would include tasking specified individuals and provide a new response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.