Business Development Bank of Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 38

Neutral Citation: Business Development Bank of Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 38
Date: 2026-04-09
OIC file number: 5825-01407
Access request number: ATI2026-013

Summary

The complainant alleged that Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) refused to process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for various types of records relating to three companies from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2025. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.  

BDC refused to process the request claiming that the requester did not confirm their right of access. The investigation found that the request met the requirements of section 6 of the Act and that the right of access has been met. BDC conceded that the request meets the requirements of section 6. The Information Commissioner ordered BDC to accept the access request and to give the notice required by section 7; if access was to be refused, it must state in the notice the specific provision on which the refusal is based, as required by section 10. BDC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) refused to process an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for various types of records relating to three companies from January 1, 2023, to present (June 30, 2025). The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Investigation

Section 6: accepting access requests

[2]Institutions must accept an access request that meets all of the following requirements under section 6:

• It must be in writing.
• It must be made to the institution that has control of the requested records.
• It must provide enough detail that experienced institutional employees could identify relevant records with a reasonable effort.

[3]If the access request does not provide enough detail for experienced employees of the institution to identify records with a reasonable effort, the institution must promptly seek clarification from the requester, in keeping with its obligations under subsection 4(2.1).

[4]If the access request remains unclear after the institution has made every reasonable effort to seek clarification, the institution does not have to make further efforts to clarify the request and may choose not to accept it. When the requester provides enough detail, the institution must accept the request.

Was it reasonable for BDC to refuse to process the request pursuant to section 6 of the Act?

[5]In the present case, it is clear that the access request was in writing, made to the institution with control of the requested records and provided enough detail to allow it to be processed by BDC, thereby meeting the three requirements of section 6. In its representations provided to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), BDC agreed that the request met the three requirements of section 6. Nevertheless, BDC conceded that it did not provide the complainant with a response letter, as they did not confirm their right of access.

[6]The right of access is provided for at section 4 of the Act, which stipulates that subject to this Part, but notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, every person who is

1. Canadian citizen, or
2. permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

[7]has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution. Access to Information Extension Order, No. 1 extends that right of access to any person or corporation present in Canada.

[8]When requesting the information from BDC, the complainant provided contact information to demonstrate the access request was coming from a corporation located in Canada. Thus, I find that the information provided by the complainant was sufficient to meet the requirement of section 4 and trigger the right of access.

[9]Where access to a record is requested, section 7 provides that written notice shall be given to the requester as to whether or not access to the record or part of it will be given. Section 10 specifies what should be stated in the notice when access is refused.

[10]In the only official letter sent to the complainant, BDC asked the complainant to provide a proof of identification and board of directors’ resolutions from each company authorizing BDC to provide the complainant with the information requested, which is not a response pursuant to any provisions of the Act.

[11]During the investigation, BDC advised that it would not be willing to process the request, considering the request was seeking client-specific information and consent was not received, as provided by section 37 of the Business Development Bank of Canada Act. BDC’s representations are to the effect that: “any responsive records would ultimately be withheld in accordance with BDC’s statutory confidentiality obligations. As such, we believe that BDC should direct its efforts toward processing ATI requests where requestors are entitled and have a right to access the file.”

[12]BDC’s representations on this matter do not pertain to an individual’s eligibility to request information pursuant to the Access to Information Act, but rather to receive unredacted information in response to a request under the Act. Determining whether information should be redacted based on consents received is not a matter to be addressed when determining whether a right of access has been met, nor whether an access request is valid.

[13]BDC cited the decision from the Federal Court of Appeal in Export Development Canada v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2025 FCA 50. In that case, EDC did not invoke section 24 (and related provision equivalent to section 37 of the Business Development Bank of Canada) as a basis to refuse processing the access request. EDC gathered and processed the responsive records. EDC even provided some information to the requester and notified them of the provisions they were relying on to justify redactions to the responsive records. Accordingly, this decision provides no support to BDC’s refusal to respond to the access request. The OIC’s conclusions in this matter do not contradict the Federal Court of Appeal decision relied upon by BDC in any respect.

[14]Access to information legislation is intended to provide public access to government records. BDC was obligated to process the request without consideration for the identity of the requester so long as the requirements of sections 4 and 6 were met.

[15]Therefore, I disagree with BDC’s position that authorizations from boards of directors are a prerequisite to the right of access to the requested information, and that BDC’s demand for such authorizations prior to processing the request aligns with the requirements set out by the Act.

[16]For the reasons set out above, I find that:

• The right of access as per section 4 is triggered given the complainant’s location in Canada.
• The request meets the three requirements of section 6 and that, as a result, BDC had sufficient information to be able to process the request and provide an official response.
• There is no other prerequisite to responding to an access request.

[17]Consequently, I conclude that it was not reasonable for BDC to refuse the access request. Furthermore, as I concluded above, the letter sent to the complainant does not constitute a proper response. BDC is required to provide a response meeting the requirements set out in sections 7 and 10 of the Access to Information Act.

Outcome

[18]The complaint is well founded.

Orders and recommendations

I order the President to do the following:

1. accept the access request, as meeting the requirements of section 6;
2. give the notice required by section 7 no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report. If access is refused, state in the notice the specific provision on which the refusal is based, as required by section 10.

Initial report and notice from institution

On March 17, 2026, I issued my initial report to the President setting out my orders.

On March 26, 2026, the President gave me notice that BDC would be implementing my orders.

Review by Federal Court

When an allegation in a complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Act, the complainant has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review. When the Information Commissioner makes an order(s), the institution also has the right to apply for a review. Whoever applies for a review must do so within 35 business days after the date of this report and serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by this deadline, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.