Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2021 OIC 6

Date: 2021-03-12
OIC file number: 5820-00869
Institution file number: A-2019-03613

Summary

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.

Complaint

[1]      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.

[2]      Subsequent to submitting the complaint, the complainant asked the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate only the RCMP’s application of subsection 19(1) to information on page 69 of the records.

Investigation

[3]      During the investigation, the RCMP conceded that some information on page 69 of the records that was previously withheld under subsection 19(1) did not constitute personal information. The RCMP issued a supplementary release in January 2021 but maintained the application of subsection 19(1) on the remaining information.

Subsection 19(1): personal information

[4]      Subsection 19(1) requires institutions to refuse to release personal information.

[5]      To claim this exemption, institutions must show the following:

• The information is about an individual—that is, a human being, not a corporation.
• There is a serious possibility that disclosing the information would identify that individual.
• The information does not fall under one of the exceptions to the definition of “personal information” set out in paragraphs 3(j) to 3(m) of the Privacy Act (for example, business contact information for public servants).

[6]      When these requirements are met, institutions must then consider whether the following circumstances exist:

• The person to whom the information relates consents to its release.
• The information is publicly available.
• Disclosure of the information would be consistent with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

[7]      When one or more of these circumstances exist, subsection 19(2) of the Access to Information Act requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to release the information.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[8]      The RCMP provided the OIC with detailed representations demonstrating that the remaining exempted information is personal information about an identifiable individual, who is not the complainant, and that the information does not fall under any of the exceptions set out in the Privacy Act.

[9]      In light of the above, the OIC concludes that the withheld information is personal information about another individual and meets the requirements of the exemption.

Is disclosure warranted under subsection 19(2)?

[10]    Under subsection 19(2), the RCMP was required to exercise its discretion to decide whether to release the remaining information when one or more of the circumstances set out in that subsection existed.

[11]    The RCMP provided a detailed rationale as to why the circumstances in subsection 19(2) did not exist in this case:

• It gave specific reasons why it would not have been appropriate to seek the consent of the individual to whom the personal information relates.
• It showed that the information is not publicly available.
• It demonstrated that the disclosure of the information would not be consistent with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

[12]    The OIC is satisfied that the circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist. Consequently, there is no need to determine whether the RCMP had exercised its discretion to decide whether to release the remaining information.

Result

[13]    The complaint is well founded.

Section 41 of the Act provides a right to the complainant who receives this report to apply to the Federal Court for a review. The complainant must apply for this review within 35 business days after the date of this report and must serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43.