Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) improperly withheld information under section 23 (legal advice and litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for legal fees related to a specific litigation file. Justice claimed solicitor-client privilege to disbursements and details of expenses included in a cost-recovery report. While the Information Commissioner agreed that disbursements are subject to a presumption of privilege, her investigation determined that the presumption was rebutted as there was no reasonable possibility that an assiduous inquirer could use the information at issue to deduce or otherwise acquire communications protected by the privilege. The Commissioner therefore recommended that Justice disclose all information initially withheld pursuant to section 23 of the Act. Justice gave notice that the recommendation would be implemented. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request for information related to the Competition Bureau’s bread price-fixing investigation. ISED considered the expected complexity of the records, factored in the program area’s needs for gathering and processing the responsive records, and assessed the Access to Information and Privacy Office’s time needs to analyze and apply exemptions to a response that would include at least 75 million pages of records. The complaint is not well founded. The OIC invites ISED to consider disclosing any completed packages of records to the complainant, as they are completed.

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) refused to process an access request for every record under its control and all associated metadata related to a series of keywords. Public Safety explained that portions of the request did not meet with certain requirements of the Access to Information Act and that processing any parts of the request would involve an expansive volume of records and all of its operations. The complaint is well founded yet the Commissioner agreed with Public Safety’s position that parts of the request did not satisfy the requirements of section 6. The Commissioner considered the effort required by an experienced employee to identify specific records as unreasonable and agreed that identifying portions of the records would take significant time and resources. Public Safety failed to meet its legislated obligations under the Act as it did not claim an extension of time and did not have the authority to refuse to process the request. The Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada gave the Commissioner notice that he would process parts of the request and committed to processing 5,000 pages per year of the approximate 645 000 pages identified as relevant to the request.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act about a follow-up investigation related to a Code of Conduct decision taken against the complainant.

The RCMP conceded that some of the withheld information did not constitute personal information and issued a supplementary release in January 2021 while maintaining the application of subsection 19(1) on the remaining information. As a result, the complaint is well founded.  The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) concluded that the remaining withheld information was personal information that concerned another individual, therefore meeting the requirements of the exemption. The OIC was also satisfied that the circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist. Consequently, there was no need to determine whether the RCMP had exercised its discretion to decide whether to release the remaining information.

The complainant alleged that the time extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to respond to a request under the Access to Information Act was unreasonable. CSIS showed that consultations with two other government institutions were necessary and could not reasonably be completed within 30 days. CSIS determined that an extension of 240 days would be required, considering the high classification level and sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review of the records, and limited access to the workplace. The OIC determined that CSIS made a serious effort to determine the length of the extension based on the realities of the pandemic situation. The OIC concluded that the time extension was reasonable given the circumstances and that CSIS met the three requirements to claim the time extension. The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) (investigative bodies) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner’s (OIC) investigation determined that the information withheld was obtained by an investigative body specified in the regulations (the RCMP) in the course of a lawful investigation pertaining to detection, prevention or suppression of crime. The information also came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request. The OIC is also satisfied that the RCMP reasonably exercised their discretion by taking into consideration relevant factors for and against disclosure.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act in response to a request for information regarding business ownership for a specific individual. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) is satisfied that the information requested is information about an identifiable taxpayer that is not the complainant, which was obtained by the CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act. The OIC is satisfied that the information meets the requirement of the exemption in subsection 24(1) because section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of the requested information. 

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to two access requests for information related to the personal or designated producers and users of medical cannabis. Responsive records were drawn from a database of medical cannabis producers licensed under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). Health Canada acknowledged that there may be additional relevant records stored in a second database but that retrieving this potentially relevant information would be unreasonable. The Office of the Information Commissioner agreed, given the amount of manual labour involved in retrieving additional potentially relevant records.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly relied on section 26 of the Access to Information Act to refuse access to annual statistics related to processing access to information and privacy requests. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was satisfied that Transport Canada met the criteria needed to establish the applicability of section 26 – Refusal of access if information to be published – and that Transport Canada had considered all relevant factors for and against disclosure in its exercise of discretion. The complaint is not well founded.