Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) had incorrectly decided that witness statements and documentation employed to support a harassment investigation final report were not under its control and that it could not, therefore, give access to these records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Although the records were not in the physical possession of the OAG, the Office of the Information Commissioner found that several relevant factors pointed to the records being under the control of the OAG. During the investigation, the OAG retrieved and processed the responsive records.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request seeking records related to pay equity for unionized CSIS employees. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Despite the involvement of its Departmental Legal Services Unit (DLSU) in the pay equity issue, CSIS refused to task this area, stating that DLSU records form part of the Department of Justice’s information holdings and are therefore not under CSIS’ control.

The Office of the Information Commissioner found that records responsive to the request might be under the control of CSIS and/or both CSIS and Justice. CSIS, in refusing to task, retrieve and review requested records from its DLSU to determine the issue of control, failed to conduct a reasonable search.

The Information Commissioner recommended that CSIS retrieve and review responsive records from its DLSU, and issue a new response.

CSIS gave notice to the Commissioner it would not implement the recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Export Development Canada (EDC) had improperly withheld information under subsections 18.1(1) (confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of EDC) and 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for a summary of all financial assistance provided by EDC to Canadian companies in Honduras over $50,000, from 2009 to 2019.

EDC could not show that it met all the requirements for these exemptions. In particular, EDC did not demonstrate how the information at issue, which is shared with and retained by EDC’s customers, belonged to EDC as required in subsection 18.1.. As for subsection 24(1) of the Act, EDC invoked section 24.3 (Privileged Information) of the Export Development Act but failed to demonstrate how the information was “obtained” by, rather than “created” by EDC.

The Information Commissioner ordered that EDC disclose the policy types (acronyms), policy numbers, and maximum liability amounts that had been withheld under paragraph 18.1(1) and subsection 24(1).

EDC gave notice that it would partially implement the order, disclosing the policy types (acronyms) but not the policy numbers and maximum liability amounts. To this effect, EDC indicated that it did not agree with the Information Commissioner of Canada’s interpretation of section 24.3 of the Export Development Act and indicated that it would be seeking a review by the Federal Court.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions), paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to the loan of objects for the exhibit “Autopsy of a Murder”.

Signatures were removed from the scope of the complaint.

The institution did not provide any representations supporting the application of the exemptions. A third party made representations related to photographs of human remains that were withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1). Given the photographs do not relate to an identifiable individual or they relate to an individual who has been deceased for more than 20 years, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) found that the photographs could not be withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1). The Office of the Privacy

Commissioner agreed with the OIC’s position.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. to disclose all information at issue.

The Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded