GCMS Notes and the Curious Case of Section(s) 16(1)(c)

[cali2bc]

I received my notes this morning and the email contained the following language:

"The processing of your request is now complete and I am pleased to enclose the documents requested. Certain information qualifies for exemption pursuant to section(s) 16(1)(c) injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations of the Access to Information Act."

Hmm! So naturally after reading that, I looked up section(s) 16(1)(c) of the Access to Immigration Act. Section 16(1)(c) is as follows:

"16. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) information obtained or prepared by any government institution, or part of any government institution, that is an investigative body specified in the regulations in the course of lawful investigations pertaining to
(i) the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
(ii) the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, or
(iii) activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act,
if the record came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request;

(b) information relating to investigative techniques or plans for specific lawful investigations;
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information
(i) relating to the existence or nature of a particular investigation,
(ii) that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, or
(iii) that was obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation; or"

But what could that mean? My eligibility, security and criminality assessments all say "Not started." There is, however, an entry on my notes that is now redacted, but it used to be on my first set of notes. It was under ASSOCIATIONS ---> ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTITIES, and it was named, "No Partner Checks Complete Application" from 4/13/15, which was an entire month before I even applied. Strange.

Does anyone have suspicions as to why this entry was redacted on my second set of notes? Is this a common thing for applicants to receive redacted notes? Should I be concerned, since it doesn't seem to hint that this redaction had to do with eligibility, security and criminality assessments.

I appreciate any feedback that you can provide!

 

[Aquakitty]

The first part sounds like they are covering their rears so they don't let out information that could impact any criminal investigations.

The redacted must be a mistake that was on your original notes, how could they note something before you even sent in your application? If you aren't a criminal I think you have nothing to worry about!

The only thing I see on the GCMS notes codes that says "partner" is common-law or conjugal partner. Are you married or common-law?

 

[cali2bc]

The first part sounds like they are covering their rears so they don't let out information that could impact any criminal investigations.

The redacted must be a mistake that was on your original notes, how could they note something before you even sent in your application? If you aren't a criminal I think you have nothing to worry about!

The only thing I see on the GCMS notes codes that says "partner" is common-law or conjugal partner. Are you married or common-law?

Thanks for the feedback, Aquakitty! I'm married (and not a criminal ) , so that redacted section makes zero sense to me. My first set of notes were released in their entirety and contained no disclaimer regarding Section 16, so that's why I was curious.

 

[Cansk]

I received my notes this morning and the email contained the following language:

"The processing of your request is now complete and I am pleased to enclose the documents requested. Certain information qualifies for exemption pursuant to section(s) 16(1)(c) injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations of the Access to Information Act."

Hmm! So naturally after reading that, I looked up section(s) 16(1)(c) of the Access to Immigration Act. Section 16(1)(c) is as follows:

"16. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) information obtained or prepared by any government institution, or part of any government institution, that is an investigative body specified in the regulations in the course of lawful investigations pertaining to
(i) the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
(ii) the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, or
(iii) activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act,
if the record came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request;

(b) information relating to investigative techniques or plans for specific lawful investigations;
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information
(i) relating to the existence or nature of a particular investigation,
(ii) that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, or
(iii) that was obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation; or"

But what could that mean? My eligibility, security and criminality assessments all say "Not started." There is, however, an entry on my notes that is now redacted, but it used to be on my first set of notes. It was under ASSOCIATIONS ---> ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTITIES, and it was named, "No Partner Checks Complete Application" from 4/13/15, which was an entire month before I even applied. Strange.

Does anyone have suspicions as to why this entry was redacted on my second set of notes? Is this a common thing for applicants to receive redacted notes? Should I be concerned, since it doesn't seem to hint that this redaction had to do with eligibility, security and criminality assessments.

I appreciate any feedback that you can provide!

Our notes had same s.16(1)c in similar area. I'm puzzled by this. I've ordered a new set of notes scheduled to arrive in a couple of weeks. Will check in with you if I see any change. Let's stay connected on this one.

 

[humblee]

Our notes had same s.16(1)c in similar area. I'm puzzled by this. I've ordered a new set of notes scheduled to arrive in a couple of weeks. Will check in with you if I see any change. Let's stay connected on this one.

How can I order my notes from my spouse sponsorship app

 

[dungle87]

How can I order my notes from my spouse sponsorship app

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/requests-atip.asp

To send a request you must be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident of Canada or an individual or corporation currently in Canada.

 

[Aquakitty]

How can I order my notes from my spouse sponsorship app

Assuming you are the sponsored person, if your spouse is in Canada, he/she can do it at the above link.

 

[Shineon39]

I received my notes this morning and the email contained the following language:

"The processing of your request is now complete and I am pleased to enclose the documents requested. Certain information qualifies for exemption pursuant to section(s) 16(1)(c) injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations of the Access to Information Act."

Hmm! So naturally after reading that, I looked up section(s) 16(1)(c) of the Access to Immigration Act. Section 16(1)(c) is as follows:

"16. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) information obtained or prepared by any government institution, or part of any government institution, that is an investigative body specified in the regulations in the course of lawful investigations pertaining to
(i) the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
(ii) the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, or
(iii) activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act,
if the record came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request;

(b) information relating to investigative techniques or plans for specific lawful investigations;
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information
(i) relating to the existence or nature of a particular investigation,
(ii) that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, or
(iii) that was obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation; or"

But what could that mean? My eligibility, security and criminality assessments all say "Not started." There is, however, an entry on my notes that is now redacted, but it used to be on my first set of notes. It was under ASSOCIATIONS ---> ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTITIES, and it was named, "No Partner Checks Complete Application" from 4/13/15, which was an entire month before I even applied. Strange.

Does anyone have suspicions as to why this entry was redacted on my second set of notes? Is this a common thing for applicants to receive redacted notes? Should I be concerned, since it doesn't seem to hint that this redaction had to do with eligibility, security and criminality assessments.

I appreciate any feedback that you can provide!

Dont worry about that, i had exactly the same under association, organization and entities. I ordered 3 set of note and all had s16 1c. Cic does some check on us, if no criminal record there is no problem
I've been approuve even with s16 1c in my note

 

[edilsonjr]

Hi guys.

Good thing I found this topic...

I have the same S.16(c) under Organisation and Entities.

I hope this is nothing, just like with you guys.

Got my first set of GCMS notes on the 18th of August, in the middle of my 4th month of processing, and could note a blank page with the S.16(c) on the top right corner.

Just requested a second set of notes, to see if anything else was added.

 

[chhapa]

Thanks for the feedback, Aquakitty! I'm married (and not a criminal ) , so that redacted section makes zero sense to me. My first set of notes were released in their entirety and contained no disclaimer regarding Section 16, so that's why I was curious.

In my Note1 (eligibility), on right corner is s16(1) (c)
They hide 8-9 rows of statements of the Note1 page

 

[Tun701]

I wouldn't worry to much about it. We had it on our first set of notes, nothing on the second set of notes and then it appeared again on the third set of notes?! Who knows why! My husband landed a few months ago with no problems!