Canadian Heritage (Re), 2026 OIC 44

Date: 2026-05-11
OIC file number: 5825-02105
Access request number: A-2025-00041

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 withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information). The access request was for records related to weightlifting in 2023 and 2024, specifically concerning confirmation letters, athlete rationale forms, and appeals.

During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner to investigate information withheld under subsection 19(1).

The investigation 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 withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information).

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

[4]The access request was for records related to weightlifting in 2023 and 2024, specifically concerning confirmation letters, athlete rationale forms, and appeals.

[5]During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to investigate information withheld under subsection 19(1) and decided it was only necessary to investigate the reasonable search.

Investigation

Reasonable Search

[6]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.

[7]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.

[8]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?

[9]The access request was for:

• all Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) confirmation letters sent to Weightlifting athletes in 2023 and 2024, including athlete nominations and notices of non-renewal;
• all AAP applications sent to Weightlifting athletes in 2023 and 2024;
• all Athlete Rationale forms for athlete nominations and non-renewal or de-carding for Weightlifting athletes in 2023 and 2024; and
• all documents relating to AAP appeals for Weightlifting in 2023 and 2024 handled via Sport Canada's panel.

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

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

[12]During the investigation, Canadian Heritage informed the OIC that it had disclosed additional information in response to the access request that is the subject of this complaint, specifically records containing confirmation letters. The complainant indicated that it resolved a portion of their complaint, however, they alleged that there were still missing records such as the Athlete Rationale Forms and documents relating to appeals.

[13]In response to my office’s request for representations under paragraph 35(2)(b), Canadian Heritage provided representations explaining why it believed that no more records responsive to the request exist.

[14]While the complainant specifically sought the Athlete Rationale Forms, Canadian Heritage explained that it received information about nominated athletes in other formats instead of using the forms, and that it had already provided the complainant with this alternate information.

[15]Turning to records related to appeals, Canadian Heritage stated that there was no appeal submitted under the AAP Appeals Policy. Canadian Heritage noted that the appeal in question was submitted through another channel and that Canadian Heritage was not part of the proceeding, nor was it privy to the details.

[16]Considering the above, I am satisfied that Canadian Heritage has provided sufficient explanation as to why these specific records do not exist.

[17]During the investigation, 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.

[18]The investigation revealed that the Office of Primary Interest most likely to have records relevant to the access request under its control searched for records in the appropriate repositories.

[19]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 other weightlifting athletes or other records related to appeals.

[20]While Canadian Heritage was able to explain why certain records do not exist, given the search was improperly narrowed, I must conclude that Canadian Heritage did not conduct a reasonable search when responding to the request, and that additional records might exist.

Outcome

[21]The complaint is well founded.

• The search conducted by Canadian Heritage included only one athlete’s name which is improperly narrow.

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 April 7, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage setting out my orders.

On May 7, 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 additional records is complete.

I remind the Minister that, if he does not intend to fully implement my order by the timeline set out below, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review.

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.