All GCMS notes will have some redactions. Since the information is redacted under s16. it is difficult to know why it was redacted. As per the ATIP manual:
11.4 Section 16 of the Act – Law enforcement, investigations, and security of penal institutions
Section 16 of the Access to Information Act (the Act) contains a series of discretionary and mandatory exemptions and class-based and injury-based exemptions that aim to protect:
- effective law enforcement, including criminal law enforcement;
- the integrity and effectiveness of other types of investigative activitiesSee footnote [11-4] — for example, ordinary administrative investigations under an Act of Parliament, investigations in regulatory areas, and air accident investigations; and
- the security of penal institutions.
Each of its first three subsections constitutes, in and of itself, an exemption to be considered independently of other subsections.
Subsection 16(4) of the Access to InformationAct defines the term “investigation” for the purpose of paragraphs 16(1)(b) and (c).
11.4.1 Paragraph 16(1)(a)
Paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to InformationAct is a discretionary class test exemption that protects the integrity of investigations and, more specifically, information obtained or prepared in the course of a lawful investigation conducted by an investigative body specified in
section 9 of the Access to Information Regulations. This information is protected with a class test because of the difficulty in applying an injury test exemption to law enforcement records when virtually all information is of a sensitive nature.
Before the exemption can be claimed, the following three conditions must be met:
- The information was obtained or prepared by an investigative body listed in Schedule I of the Access to Information Regulations.
This does not mean that only those investigative bodies may invoke the exemption. Other institutions may claim the exemption provided that the record meets the three conditions.
- The information was obtained or prepared in the course of a lawful investigation.See footnote [11-5]
This means that the investigation itself must be sanctioned or not forbidden by law. It does not, however, address the issue of the legality of techniques used in the course of a lawful investigation or the issue of whether evidence has been illegally obtained.
- The investigation pertains to:
- the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
- the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, or
- activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
- Paragraph 16(1)(a) and its subparagraphs apply to information obtained in the course of investigations conducted under the Criminal Code or investigations of any other illicit activities prohibited under federal or provincial law, including municipal laws.
Subparagraph 16(1)(a)(i) refers to crime and would apply to investigations undertaken for the purposes of enforcing the Criminal Code. It should be noted, however, that not all offences based on the criminal law power are included in the Criminal Code and not all offences in the Criminal Code are based on the criminal law power. Subparagraph 16(1)(a)(ii) refers to investigations of activities prohibited under federal or provincial laws. These activities can include crimes; thus there is some overlap between subparagraphs 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii). The activities referred to in subparagraph 16(1)(a)(ii) are primarily those punishable as offences under federal or provincial law. The term “law of a province” includes municipal laws.
Subparagraph 16(1)(a)(iii) focuses on activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The exemption is not limited on its face to information collected by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but can be claimed by one of the other investigative bodies listed in Schedule I of the Access to Information Regulations provided that the other criteria set out in paragraph 16(1)(a) are met.
Time limitation
Paragraph 16(1)(a)applies only to records that came into existence less than twenty years ago. This does not mean that records covered by this exemption must automatically be disclosed pursuant to an access to information request once they are twenty years old. Although records that are more than twenty years old automatically fall outside the protection of paragraph 16(1)(a), paragraph 16(1)(c) can be applied if there is still a need to protect them.
In the decision
Fontaine v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2009 FCA 150, the Federal Court of Appeal indicated that the 20-year time limit under paragraph 16(1)(a)of the Act is calculated from the date on which the access request is made and not from the date of the subsequent final decision.
Use of discretion
It should be remembered that despite its class nature, paragraph 16(1)(a) is a discretionary exemption. This flexibility is meant to temper the broad nature of the class test, and the head of the institution must exercise discretion in determining whether records that fall within the provision may nevertheless be disclosed. If, after balancing the reasons for release and the reasons against release in good faith and using only factors relevant to the Act, the head has reasonable cause to believe that the records should not be disclosed, he or she has the discretion to exempt this information.
To read more, see
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/access-information/access-information-manual.html#cha11_4
It can be from your security screening, which is usually redacted under s16.
But there is nothing to be concerned, as all GCMS notes have redactions, specially under s16.
