Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for Electronic records from the Privy Council Office that mention the terms "[ ]" or "Democracy Watch" from October 1, 2015 to April 23, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to initiate consultations and process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request by November 30, 2024 and provide interim releases of records where possible.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and would respond to the access request by the ordered due date.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for the records contained in File 45731-2-2001 – ICSI Meetings 2001. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to initiate consultations and process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and would respond to the access request within the ordered time frame.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for records from specific dates related to the operation and restrictions applied to determined aircraft, received and distributed by a specific employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Transport Canada did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the 30-day period.

The investigation revealed that the program area, Safety and Security, took three months to locate 148 pages of potentially responsive records.

The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following receipt of the final report. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with the order. The Commissioner advised that, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the Act.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) did not respond within the time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act to an access request for records relating to COVID-19 vaccinations for federal employees and for travel, among other allegations. The complainant also alleged that Justice took an invalid extension of time and eventually withdrew it. These allegations fall within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant additionally alleged that Justice improperly placed the access request on hold, that Justice improperly communicated by phone, and that Justice did not meet its responsibilities under subsection 4(2.1). These allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(f).

Justice withdrew the time extension and no further investigation into its validity was required. Justice did not show that it had properly placed the access request on hold. No evidence was received illustrating undue pressure to communicate by phone, or that Justice communicated by phone without the complainant’s express consent.

Justice did not demonstrate that it had met its obligations to assist the complainant, as set out in subsection 4(2.1). Justice did not respond by the deadline to respond to the request. As such, Justice is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

The Commissioner did not find evidence related to the commissioner of an offence under the Act in the context of this investigation.

The Commissioner ordered Justice to remove any hold placed on the processing of the request, provide a complete response to the access request by May 17, 2029, provide updates to the complainant every six months, and provide interim releases to the complainant at regular intervals if possible.

Justice gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for all documentation relative to the unidentified object shot down in Yukon Canadian airspace on 11th February 2023 and for the unidentified object shot down over Lake Huron near Canadian airspace on 12th February 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report. The Commissioner also made two recommendations: that DND develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that DND Offices of Primary Interest will abide to their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to their access officials and that DND develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to their access officials.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for materials relating to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped the above-noted access request with other requests to take the extension of time. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 2,404 pages of responsive records were received. The OIC noted that PSCP failed to demonstrate that it applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine the duration of the extension of time and to make 768 days reasonable and justified in the current circumstances.

Additionally, with regard to the allegation that PSPC improperly regrouped the access request with a related request to justify the time extension, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that PSPC would not have claimed the extension if it did not regroup the request. Therefore, the OIC concluded that the basis for the allegation under paragraph 30(1)(f) is not valid.

Considering these points, and how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for all documents respecting House of Commons committee studies related to the business of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, from February 1, 2023 to July 14, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 5,782 pages of responsive records were initially received. It was also noted that, although follow-ups were initiated, one of CRA’s Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) had not yet provided the balance of their responsive records (approximately 4,715 pages) for review.

Despite the remaining work, given how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of National Revenue that CRA to issue a complete response to the access request by no later than January 8, 2025. In addition, the Information Commissioner made two recommendations: first, that CRA develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that CRA OPIs will abide by their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to CRA’s ATIP Office; and second, that CRA develop performance indicators to hold its senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to CRA’s ATIP Office. CRA gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order and has taken the recommendations into consideration.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for the results of Ross Harvey’s (Dr. Ross B. Harvey was a Suffield Experimental Station (SES)/Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) defence scientist from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s who worked extensively in both the Chemical Warfare and Shock and Blast programs) review of these reports. Presumably, he prepared a short summary of his recommendations for each report; and, documents detailing which recommendations were accepted and implemented by DRES management. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Investigation determined DND did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request and provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

National Defence gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.