Language selection

OPC Logo Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Search

Investigation into IRCC’s search for records using modified wording

Complaint under the Privacy Act (the “Act”)

September 21, 2023

Report of findings

Complaint

  1. The complainant’s representative (the representative) alleged that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) contravened the access provisions of the Privacy Act (the Act) by failing to disclose all information the complainant sought to obtain under the Act.

Investigation

Summary of the access request and institution’s responses

  1. Our investigation confirmed that the complainant submitted a request under the Act for all records dated between July 15, 2017 and October 31, 2017, about the complainant and/or her minor children. Without limiting the generality of the request, the complainant sought access to all records relating to the cancellation and reissuing of their visas in August 2017, such as but not limited to notes in the Global Case Management System (GCMS), memos, and correspondence.
  2. IRCC responded by providing the complainant access to some information, but withholding other information under paragraph 22(1)(b), and sections 21 and 26 of the Act.

Complaint allegations

  1. The representative alleged that there ought to have been more records regarding the subject matter of the request. He submitted that IRCC failed to provide correspondence sent and/or received by a specific IRCC employee about the complainant and/or her children, and all memos, notes, and correspondence between July 15, 2017, and October 31, 2017. He noted that the IRCC employee had exchanged several emails with the complainant in the responsive date range.

Scope of the investigation

  1. Our investigation focused on the allegation of missing information.

Analysis

Did IRCC conduct a reasonable search for records?

  1. During the course of the investigation, we reviewed how IRCC conducted its search for information responsive to the request in an effort to evaluate whether the search was reasonable. We sought to determine whether IRCC had fulfilled its obligations under the Act to provide the relevant information under its control.
  2. We learned that IRCC tasked three offices of primary interest (OPIs), but only two held information about the complainant.
  3. However, we noted that IRCC reduced the scope of the request without the complainant’s approval for all records dated between July 15, 2017 and October 31, 2017, about the complainant and/or her minor children.
  4. In rescoping the request in the way that it did, IRCC did not originally conduct a specific search for all records relating to the cancellation and reissuing of the complainant and her children’s visas in August 2017, including but not limited to notes in the GCMS, memos, and correspondence. The OPIs tasked with retrieval of responsive records may not have been the only appropriate OPIs to task, and other OPIs may have held responsive records.
  5. Subsequent to our initial discussions, IRCC agreed to expand the breadth of its search. IRCC confirmed that the employee in question no longer worked for IRCC. As a result, IRCC consulted with one of its missions and asked that it conduct a search for a specific file, and correspondence generated from/to the IRCC employee between July 15, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The mission advised that the application was destroyed in accordance with its retention and disposal guidelines and that it did not locate any correspondence generated from or to the IRCC employee in relation to this file within that time period. The mission also reported that the only records related to this application are those held in GCMS.
  6. During the course of the investigation, we also reviewed the information that IRCC processed (and either withheld or released) in response to the request and identified other OPIs that may hold relevant records. As a result, IRCC consulted with two other OPIs, but both reported having no information related to the request.
  7. After review, we are of the view that IRCC did not initially conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the complainant’s access request. However, now that IRCC has tasked all the appropriate OPIs, we are satisfied that it met its obligations under the Act. Despite these efforts, we found no evidence to suggest that additional information currently exists related to the request.

Conclusion

  1. In this case, we consider that IRCC originally failed to conduct proper searches for records. Accordingly, the complaint is well-founded. However, now that IRCC has conducted reasonable searches in accordance with its obligations under the Act, albeit no additional information was found, we consider the complaint resolved.
Date modified: