Decisions

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on a request for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the request - for all internal correspondence of the institution over a period of seven years - constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The requester declined to make submissions in relation to this application.

The Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access. Specifically, the overbroad scope of the request, in combination with the small size of the institution, its limited resources, and the impact upon the institution’s ability to fulfill its mandate all weigh in favour of finding that the request is an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner granted the application.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act information related to mediation services provided by the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (CICR). Transport Canada applied paragraph 20(1)(b) to information contained in invoices billed by CICR. In its representations, CICR maintained that the exemption was properly applied. The Information Commissioner agreed that the third party’s hourly rate and the number of hours billed were properly withheld as it would reveal commercial information and CICR has consistently treated this information as confidential. However, the Information Commissioner concluded that the description of services billed, the dates of services, the subtotal of charges, the amount of taxes applied, the “total amount” and the “amount paid” cannot be withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) as they do not meet the criteria set out in that paragraph.

The Information Commissioner ceased an investigation, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

Paragraph 30(4)(b) allows the Commissioner to refuse or cease to investigate a complaint when initiating or continuing the investigation is unnecessary, including when the matter has already been the subject of an investigation or final report.

In this instance, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) has already investigated and issued a final report on an identical matter—that is, allegations that the institution did not conduct a reasonable search for records created in the 1990’s.

The OIC informed the complainant that it was considering ceasing the investigation on the basis that it had already investigated an identical matter and offered an opportunity to the complainant to provide representations. The complainant did not respond.

No evidence suggesting that this matter is different has been provided to the OIC.

In light of the above, continuing this investigation was unnecessary.

The complainant alleges that Health Canada did not respond to an access request for information regarding problems with implantable medical devices, within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act.

Health Canada claimed a time extension based on paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) and consulted nine (9) third parties, one of which opposed the release of its information and applied to the Federal Court for a review. During the investigation, the third party withdrew its application for judicial review. Health Canada failed to provide a response within the extended time limit and was deemed to have refused access to the requested records.

The Information Commissioner recommended that Health Canada provide a final response to the complainant by May 26, 2021.The Minister of Health agreed to implement the recommendation. 

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. LAC took a 425-day extension of time but failed to meet the extended deadline for a response. LAC was therefore in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3). LAC’s delay was partially due to a lengthy consultation with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Furthermore, LAC could not process the records, which were classified as Top Secret, as it does not have the infrastructure in place to do so. The Information Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Canadian Heritage find an interim solution to process this request and strongly urged him to implement a permanent and timely solution to allow LAC to handle and process classified records. The Minister acknowledged LAC’s need to have digital processing capability and informed the Commissioner that LAC responded to this request by redacting the records by hand. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) was incorrect in stating that it could not process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The access request is for emails to and from a named ESDC employee, containing certain keywords. Given the specific keywords, ESDC did not process the request because it claimed that the emails were not under its control. The emails are entirely personal in nature, and have no business value for ESDC. As a result, even though the emails are stored on ESDC servers, the Office of the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the requested records are not under ESDC’s control and therefore not subject to the Act. The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not respond to their access request for a list of all COVID-19-related contracts between January 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020, within the time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. PSPC indicated that part of the reason for its delay in responding to the request was that it had been placed on hold due to measures taken to stop the spread of COVID-19. The Information Commissioner has already indicated that, under the Act,an institution cannot suspend the processing of these access requests because of the pandemic. The Office of the Information Commissioner concludes that PSPC failed to respond to the request within the time limit set out in section 7 of the Act and is therefore deemed to have refused to give access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). PSPC responded to the request on April 1, 2021. The complaint is well founded.

In 2019-2020, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) received 116,928 access requests, a 42-percent increase from the previous year. Almost all of these requests (98.9 percent) were for immigration application files.

Also in 2019-2020, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) registered 4,298 complaints against IRCC, 97 percent of which involved allegations that IRCC had failed to respond to access requests for immigration application files within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act. In the two years prior to 2019-2020, the OIC had registered only 226 and 558 complaints against IRCC, respectively.

To better understand and make recommendations to address the root cause of the dramatic increase in access requests and complaints, the Information Commissioner initiated a systemic investigation into IRCC’s processing of requests for immigration application files from April 1, 2017, to February 26, 2020.  

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had improperly withheld names of the employees within the Prime Minister’s Office under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to the Minister of Revenue’s announcement regarding audits of registered charities for political activities. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) concluded that the withheld information was personal information, therefore meeting the requirements of the exemption. The OIC was also satisfied that the circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist. The complaint is not well founded.