Decisions

Type

171 decisions found

Feb 5
2020

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2020 OIC 17

Institution
-
Section of the Act
6.1
Decision Type
6.1 decision
Summary

An institution made an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act (the Act). The institution alleged that the access request is both vexatious and an abuse of the right to make a request.

The institution explained that the requester was displeased with how the institution handled his affairs and that in the 17 years since, has submitted a total of 893 requests, many of which are closely related.

Read more
Jan 14
2020

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2020 OIC 1

Institution
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Section of the Act
10(3)
Decision Type
final report
Summary

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is deemed to have refused to give access to records requested under the Access to Information Act (Act). The RCMP was asked, and failed to provide adequate representations. Since the breach of the Act was ongoing, an initial report with intended order was issued. Following the receipt of the initial report, the RCMP responded to the access request rendering any prospective order pointless. The complaint is well-founded.

Read more
Nov 29
2019

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 3

Institution
-
Section of the Act
6.1
Decision Type
6.1 decision
Summary

An institution made an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

The institution explained that, in response to a request not made under the Act (the “informal request”), it had already disclosed to the same requester some of the information sought in an access request (the “formal request”).

The institution sought the Commissioner’s approval to exclude the informally released records from the scope of the formal access request.

Read more
Aug 29
2019

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 2

Institution
-
Section of the Act
6.1
Decision Type
6.1 decision
Summary

An institution made an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution alleged that the access request is vexatious, is an abuse of the right to make a request and is in bad faith.

The institution explained that the requester is a former employee who was dismissed. Since this time, the requester has pursued other proceedings in relation to the termination. The requester has also submitted over a dozen requests under the Act and Privacy Act over a one-year period.

Read more
Aug 26
2019

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 1

Institution
-
Section of the Act
6.1
Decision Type
6.1 decision
Summary

An institution made an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution alleged that the access request is vexatious, is an abuse of the right to make a request and is in bad faith.

The institution explained that the requester is a former employee who was dismissed. Since this time, the requester has pursued other proceedings in relation to the termination. The requester has also submitted over a dozen requests under the Act and Privacy Act over a one-year period.

Read more
Jun 18
2019

Access officials must be allowed to challenge program areas when responding to requests

Institution
National Defence
Section of the Act
10
Decision Type
notable investigation
Summary

Complaint: National Defence told a requester that it had searched for a report but could find no related records. In the same response, the institution also noted that the report in question was still being drafted.

Investigation: The OIC concluded that the response, which was based on recommendations from the Office of the Judge Advocate General, was inappropriate, since a document did exist, as the response itself highlighted. In addition, the fact that the document was in draft form at the time of the request did not exclude it from the Act.

Outcome: The OIC’s investigation and a simultaneous professional misconduct enquiry by the Canadian Armed Forces’ National Investigation Service into the processing of the original request, led to several changes to the structure, staffing, training and oversight of the access to information function at National Defence. The Commissioner recommended that the institution review the access function annually, offer specific training and guidance on the duty to assist and the Act’s offence provisions, raise access to information performance at senior management meetings, and add a requirement to the performance agreements of certain key executives related to complying with the Act, including to provide timely, accurate and complete responses when tasked for records.

Information Commissioner’s position:

  • Program officials are required to provide timely, accurate and complete responses to enquiries from the access office. In turn, access officials must be allowed to challenge program areas when responding to requests.
  • Including compliance requirements in executive performance agreements is an effective way to ensure institutions meet their obligations under the Act.
Read more
Jun 18
2019

Publicly available information on exempt staff travel should be disclosed

Institution
Privy Council Office
Section of the Act
19
Decision Type
notable investigation
Summary

Complaint: Eight complaints focused on the Privy Council Office’s (PCO) decision to refuse to disclose as personal information (section 19) travel expenses for members of the Prime Minister’s staff who are not part of the regular public service (known as “exempt staff”).

Investigation: The OIC learned that when any requested records related to exempt staff contain personal information PCO treats all the records as personal information. However, in doing so in this case PCO had improperly withheld information that was not personal information and some that was already publicly available. In addition, PCO did not provide sufficient details to show that it had sought the consent of the individuals to whom the personal information related to disclose it or had considered disclosing some or all of the information in the public interest.

Outcome: In finding the eight complaints to be well founded, the Commissioner formally recommended that PCO disclose the information she considered not to be personal information and reconsider whether it could disclose any publicly available personal information. While disagreeing with the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations, PCO released additional personal information, including some with the consent of the individuals to whom it related.

Information Commissioner’s position:

  • Taking a blanket approach to treating certain records fails to take into account the purposes of the Act, including that exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific.
  • To validly exempt information under section 19, institutions must show that the information meets the definition of personal information in section 3 of the Privacy Act, and that none of the exceptions found at section 19(2) applies.
  • Institutions must disclose any information they could reasonably sever from the exempted information under section 25 of the Act. In this case, for example, PCO did not do so, withholding parts of records that contained no personal information.
Read more
Jun 18
2019

Firearms serial numbers are not personal information

Institution
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Section of the Act
19
Decision Type
notable investigation
Summary

Complaint: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) refused in two instances to disclose the serial numbers on firearms. The RCMP stated that the numbers were personal information that had to be protected under section 19, because they made it possible to identify the owners of the firearms.

Investigation: During the investigations, the RCMP also argued that the serial numbers should be protected because they could be cross-referenced with law enforcement databases to identify the firearms’ owners.

Outcome: The Commissioner recommended that the RCMP disclose the serial numbers. The RCMP did not accept this recommendation in either case, so the Commissioner applied to the Federal Court for review.

Information Commissioner’s position:

  • To meet the definition of personal information in section 3 of the Privacy Act, institutions must show that the information in question is about an identifiable person. However, serial number are information about firearms, not the individuals who own them.
  • A member of the public could not possibly identify the owner of a firearm from just the serial number because the law enforcement databases that would make this possible are not public.
Read more
Jun 18
2019

Supreme Court decision allows institutions to withhold information under section 35

Institution
Canada Revenue Agency
Section of the Act
35
Decision Type
notable investigation
Summary

Complaint: Citing section 35, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) withheld in their entirety the records related to the processing of two access requests.

Investigation: The OIC reviewed the matter in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rubin v. Canada (Clerk of the Privy Council), [1996] 1 SCR 6. The Supreme Court found that, while section 35 is not considered an exemption under the Act, institutions may rely on it when declining to disclose information they provided to the OIC during investigations (called “representations” in the Act).

Outcome: In light of the OIC’s investigation, CRA released more information. However, the Commissioner was satisfied that CRA had properly invoked section 35 to protect the rest under the terms the Supreme Court had established.

Information Commissioner’s position:

  • According to the Supreme Court, while section 35 is not considered an exemption under the Act, institutions may rely on it when declining to disclose information they provided to the OIC during investigations.
Read more
Jun 18
2019

Meeting the duty to assist requires intelligible response

Institution
Transport Canada
Section of the Act
15
Decision Type
notable investigation
Summary

Complaint: After being instructed by the Federal Court to reasonably exercise its discretion to release information under subsection 15(1), Transport Canada again decided to withhold the information.

Investigation: Over the course of the investigation, Transport Canada provided convincing evidence that it had exercised its discretion reasonably at the time of its second decision to protect the information.

Outcome: Nevertheless, the Commissioner closed the complaint as well founded, given that the new decision was written in such a way that it was impossible for the requester to have understood that Transport Canada had exercised its discretion properly. The Commissioner also concluded that, in providing such a response, the institution had contravened its obligation to make every reasonable effort to assist the requester.

Information Commissioner’s position:

  • The duty to assist requires institutions’ responses to requesters to be intelligible. Given the direction of the Federal Court in this case, Transport Canada’s response should have included the specific factors it considered in exercising its discretion anew.
Read more
Date modified:
Submit a complaint