Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Re), 2026 OIC 42
Date: 2026-05-07
OIC file number: 5825-04014
Access request number: EA-2025_0143790
Summary
The complainant alleged that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) 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 all records, within a specified period, regarding the cull of the ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, including planning, execution, disposal, cleanup, security and any additional ostrich cull-related matter.
The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
The CFIA was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was in large part caused by the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to promptly initiate the Offices of Primary Interest to search and retrieve responsive records. The CFIA also maintained that there were ongoing Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigations directly associated with the subject matter of this request, and that the collection of responsive records was delayed due to a variety of safety and security concerns, as well as the volume of records.
The Information Commissioner ordered the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.
The President gave the Commissioner notice that the CFIA would be implementing her order, and had already taken steps to that end, having retrieved all records and started reviewing them. He further explained that the ATIP office has taken measures to mitigate information gathering and handling issues associated with this topic and other associated requests and has dedicated resources to the processing of these requests.
The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1]The complainant alleged that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) 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 all records, within a specified period, regarding the cull of the ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, including planning, execution, disposal, cleanup, security and any additional ostrich cull-related matter. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Investigation
Time limits for responding to access requests
[2]Section 7 requires institutions to respond to access requests within 30 days unless they have transferred a request to another institution or validly extended the 30-day period for responding by meeting the requirements of section 9. When an institution does not respond to a request within the 30-day or extended period, it is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[3]Nevertheless, the institution is still required to provide a response to the access request.
What is a response?
[4]The response must be in writing and indicate whether the institution is giving access to any or part of the requested records.
- When the response indicates that the institution has given access to the records or part of them, the institution must provide access to those records.
- When the response indicates that the institution has denied access to the records or part of them, the institution must explain that the records do not exist or that the institution has exempted them, or part of them, under a specific provision, which the institution must name.
[5]In specific circumstances, the institution may refuse to confirm or deny in its response whether records exist under subsection 10(2).
Did the institution respond within the time limits?
[6]The CFIA received the access request on November 19, 2025, but neither extended the period within which it had to respond to the request under subsection 9(1), nor transferred the request. This means that the 30-day period under section 7 still applied, making the time limit to respond December 19, 2025.
[7]The CFIA did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude, therefore, that the CFIA did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the 30-day period. The CFIA is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[8]The investigation revealed that the request that is the subject of this complaint is being processed concurrently with more than fifty other requests submitted by additional parties, for related information. The CFIA maintained that there were ongoing Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigations directly associated with the subject matter of this request. Furthermore, responsive records had not yet been collected due to a variety of safety and security concerns, both internal and external, as well as the sheer volume of records pertaining to the subject matter.
[9]The CFIA explained that the aforementioned safety and security concerns, coupled with operational constraints at the time of the cull, prevented it from following its standard protocol to task and collect records at the time the request was received. The CFIA also asserted that operational constraints persist due to ongoing Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza activities and that safety and security concerns remain a significant obstacle to collecting records.
[10]Moreover, the CFIA indicated that taskings will need to be specific and limited, adding that access to the records is severely restricted and only a handful of subject matter experts will be working on these files at any given time.
[11]Since it had not yet received the records, the CFIA’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office was, therefore, unaware of whether any consultations would be required before responding to the access request, nor of the specific volume or complexity of the responsive records. As such, the ATIP office was not in a position to provide the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) with a date by which it anticipated providing a complete response to the access request. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to provide representations beyond the sensitivity of the subject matter and safety concerns, the ATIP office failed to provide any information germane to the outstanding work necessary to complete the processing of the request, such as the possibility of any essential consultations.
[12]I find the delay taken by the CFIA to search, gather and send all relevant records to the ATIP office in a judicious manner irresponsible and unacceptable. The lack of responsiveness from the institution is demonstrative of a blatant disregard for the Act and for the right to access of Canadians. As the tasking for potentially responsive records has yet to be initiated, the request remains in abeyance until such time as the ATIP office receives responsive records. Had the retrieval of records been conducted within a reasonable timeframe from when the request was submitted, the ATIP office would be in a position to provide a planned response date.
[13]The conduct of the CFIA with respect to this access request is neither authorized nor justifiable under the Act. The Act does not authorize an institution to “pause” the response to an access request pending the outcome of a strategic plan of action to address multiple requests for similar information, or due to the sensitivity of the information. On the contrary, the intent of the Act aims to ensure that public access to information is not hindered by administrative delay.
[14]Timely access to government records is integral to a healthy and open democratic society. In the realm of access, access delayed is too often access denied. When an institution fails to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits, it is not a trivial, inconsequential nor insignificant oversight. Rather, it is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Act that affects the public’s confidence not only in its government institutions, but in the access to information system as a whole.
[15]The CFIA should demonstrate responsible governance by responding promptly to access requests, thereby acting as an example for its public officials in fulfilling their duty to provide timely access to information to Canadians. Rather than delaying access, the CFIA should note that the handling of sensitive information, as well as concerns relating to the impact its disclosure could have on the safety and security concerns of personnel and third parties, are appropriately addressed through the timely application of exemptions. This is the scheme envisioned under the Act; there is no provision allowing an institution to put a request on hold under the present circumstances.
[16]The lack of action from the ATIP office has affected the CFIA’s ability to meet its obligation to ensure that this access request was responded to in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Moreover, this delay has also prevented the CFIA’s ATIP office from assessing the work involved with responding to the request, which is essential for determining the resources and time needed to process the request effectively.
[17]Furthermore, since the searches were not conducted, it is unclear if the program areas were at least notified of the requests and thus were aware of the obligation to retain records, including transitory records that may be relevant. The right of access is a quasi-constitutional right. This right cannot exist without records, which is why it is essential that all necessary measures be taken to preserve records that document decisions and actions, even under extraordinary circumstances. It is only in this manner that we can ensure that institutional accountability, one of the main objectives of the Act, is upheld, thereby preserving the public’s trust.
[18]The President should remind his public service officials that properly storing and managing information related to key actions is essential to efficiently and dutifully respond to access requests. Moreover, the President should remind his public officials of their responsibility in providing timely access to information to Canadians. The ATIP unit is not the only one responsible for ensuring that the Act is respected; it is a departmental and collective responsibility. It is up to the head of the institution, here, the President of the CFIA, to ensure that it is understood and respected within the institution.
[19]The CFIA must respond to the request within the shortest amount of time possible. Any response must necessarily be compliant with the CFIA’s other obligations under the Act, including the obligation to respond to the request accurately, completely and in a timely manner. The OIC was eventually provided with a tentative record retrieval date of April 10, 2026, but no further representations were received about the expected timeline to process those records.
[20]Considering the complexity of the subject matter, the fact that the volume of the records to be reviewed remains unknown, the work that remains outstanding – including possible consultations - and how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, I conclude that it is appropriate for the CFIA to provide a response as soon as possible, but no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.
Outcome
[21]The complaint is well founded.
Order
I order the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.
Initial report and notice from institution
On April 13, 2026, I issued my initial report to the President, setting out my order.
On April 24, 2026, the President gave me notice that the CFIA would be implementing my order, and has already taken steps to that end, having retrieved all records and started reviewing them. He further explained that the ATIP office has taken measures to mitigate information gathering and handling issues associated with this topic and other associated requests, and has dedicated resources to the processing of these requests.
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, this order takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.