Canadian Heritage (Re), 2026 OIC 40

Date: 2026-05-01
OIC file number: 5825-02107
Access request number: A-2025-00043

Summary

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The complainant also alleged that Canadian Heritage improperly responded that some or all of the requested records do not exist. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The access request was for records related to communications by any Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) staff with any staff within Sport Canada during a specific time period, relating to weightlifting.

The investigation revealed that certain records appeared to be missing from the response package that had been provided to the complainant.

The investigation also revealed that the scope of the search was likely not broad enough to capture all the responsive records, and Canadian Heritage failed to provide sufficient representations to explain why its search was reasonable.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Canadian Heritage to conduct a new search and provide a new response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

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

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act.

[2]The complainant also alleged that Canadian Heritage improperly responded that some or all of the requested records do not exist.

[3]Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[4]The access request was for records related to communications by any Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) staff with any staff within Sport Canada during the period from July 1, 2024, to May 18, 2025, relating to weightlifting, Weightlifting Canada and weightlifting athletes.

Investigation

Reasonable Search

[5]Canadian Heritage 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.

[6]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.

[7]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?

[8]My office sought representations from Canadian Heritage related to the search for responsive records.

[9]I have also considered the representations received from the complainant in coming to my conclusions.

[10]In response to my office’s request for representations, Canadian Heritage explained the steps it took to identify and locate all the responsive records, including keywords used to locate records and the repositories searched.

[11]While the request was not limited to records related to a specific athlete, Canadian Heritage indicated that it only used one athlete’s name to search for records. I find that by only using one athlete’s name, the scope of the search was likely not broad enough to capture all the responsive records including records relating to weightlifting, Weightlifting Canada or other weightlifting athletes.

[12]Turning to the database areas that were searched, Canadian Heritage noted that searches were performed on a SharePoint Site and on a shared network owned by Canadian Heritage, the Sport Canada section in particular. However, Canadian Heritage failed to explain how these were determined to be the most appropriate places to search. Considering that some of the communications might have originated from Outlook, such as emails, it is not clear why Outlook was not searched in case certain emails had not been saved to the corporate repositories.

[13]Canadian Heritage indicated that all of Sport Canada was tasked with the retrieval of records. Since the request sought records specific to Sport Canada, I am satisfied that the Office of the Primary Interest most likely to have records relevant to the access request under its control searched for records.

[14]During the investigation, Canadian Heritage provided representations explaining why it believed that no more records responsive to the request exist. Canadian Heritage noted that it communicates with the COC once a year to confirm matching investment for a specific funding, but since those yearly communications fall outside the period covered by this request, Canadian Heritage implied that these records would not be responsive to the request. Canadian Heritage also stated that it attended a meeting with other stakeholders, including the COC, during this specific timeframe, but that the COC did not communicate anything about weightlifting to Canadian Heritage during this meeting.

[15]While Canadian Heritage explained that it had limited communications with the COC during this timeframe, the complainant provided representations demonstrating that there were additional exchanges between Sport Canada and the COC. These exchanges consisted of emails dated September 25, 2024, discussing the agenda for an “HP meeting” on September 26, 2024. I find that these records would have been responsive to the request since they were communications from the COC to Sport Canada about weightlifting during the specified period, however, Canadian Heritage failed to provide them in response to the request.

[16]Since the investigation revealed that certain records were missing from the response package, and based on the lack of representations regarding the search conducted and the existence of records, I conclude that Canadian Heritage did not conduct a reasonable search when responding to the request, and that additional records might exist.

Outcome

[17]The complaint is well founded.

Orders

I order the Minister of Canadian Heritage to:

1. Conduct a new search for records that respond to the access request;
2. Provide a new response to the complainant once the search is complete, no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report;
3. Give access to any additional records, unless access to them, or to part of them, may be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of Act. When this is the case, name the provision(s); and
4. If no additional responsive records are located during the search, indicate in the response how and where the search was conducted and why no such records were identified.

Initial report and notice from institution

On March 31, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my orders.

On April 29, 2026, the Acting Deputy Director of the Access to Information and Privacy division gave me notice that Canadian Heritage would be implementing my orders. Canadian Heritage also noted that it has conducted a second search for records and that it would provide a new response to the complainant once the review of the two additional records is complete.

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.