Canada Revenue Agency (Re), 2025 OIC 39

Date: 2025-07-09
OIC file number: 5822-01900
Access request number: A-2021-131695

Summary

The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for a 13-point list of specific categories of records held by a named subject matter expert. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As a result of the investigation, Canada Revenue Agency conducted additional searches and confirmed that further responsive records exist.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of National Revenue process the additional records and provide a new response within 60 business days.

The Minister of National Revenue gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]        The complainant alleged that Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for a 13-point list of specific categories of records held by a named subject matter expert (SME). The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[2]        The complainant also alleges that CRA had improperly withheld information in response to the request. That allegation is being investigated separately in file number 5822-01899.

Investigation

Reasonable search

[3]        CRA was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request—that is, one or more experienced employees, knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request, must have made reasonable efforts to identify and locate all records reasonably related to the request.

[4]        A reasonable search involves a level of effort that would be expected of any fair, sensible person tasked with searching for responsive records where they are likely to be stored.

[5]        This search does not have to be perfect. An institution is therefore not required to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. Institutions must however be able to show that they took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records.

Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for records?

[6]        CRA access to information officials explained that the program area and SME likely to have responsive records were tasked during the search.

[7]        During the investigation, my office contacted the complainant to obtain any evidence that would support their claims that CRA’s search was unreasonable. The complainant responded that the records provided were incomplete and drew particular attention to records related to performance assessment and expectations, audio recordings, communications with union representatives, relief reports and case information sheets, and calendar entries.

[8]        CRA explained that some records may no longer exist, due to being transitory records or in accordance with record retention polices. Additionally, CRA provided explanations for why specific records were not retrieved.

[9]        CRA also stated that some records had already been provided in response to other access requests. I remind CRA that all responsive records must be provided in response to a request, even if they have been provided in response to another request.

[10]      I also note that aside from CRA’s explanations, evidence of additional records was provided by the complainant which indicated that further responsive records were likely to exist. In light of this, CRA conducted a second additional search and confirmed on May 1, 2025, that further responsive records do exist and that it intends to provide them to the complainant.

[11]      Based on the deficiencies in the initial searches, I conclude that CRA did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the access request at the time it first processed the request; however, I am satisfied with the additional searches conducted as a result of the investigation. CRA must now ensure that any existing responsive records are retrieved and processed.

Outcome

[12]      The complaint is well founded as CRA did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the access request at the time it first processed the request.

Orders

I order the Minister of National Revenue to do the following:

1. Complete the retrieval and the processing of all records responsive to the request;
2. Provide a supplementary response to the request no later than 60 business days after the final report; and
3. Give access to responsive records, unless access to them, or to part of them, may be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act. When this is the case, name the provision(s).

Initial report and notice from institution

On May 29, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister of National Revenue setting out my orders.

On June 26, 2025, the Director of the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate gave me notice that CRA would be implementing the 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.