WxT Language switcher

Environment and Climate Change Canada (Re), 2025 OIC 51

Date: 2025-10-03
OIC file number: 5825-00996
Access request number: A-2024-00386

Summary

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for records related to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility project known as “Cedar LNG”, from as early as January 2020. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that ECCC did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Offices of the Primary Interest (OPIs) and the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to provide records and process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC issue interim responses for documents not requiring consultation and provide a complete response to the access request no later than March 16, 2026.

The Commissioner also recommended that ECCC develop processes and procedures to ensure that OPIs provide responsive records in a timely manner, and develop performance indicators to hold its officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to ECCC’s ATIP office.

ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders and recommendations and described how the recommendations are being implemented.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1] The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for records related to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility project known as “Cedar LNG”, from as early as January 2020. 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] ECCC received the access request on September 16, 2024. On October 21, 2024, ECCC extended the time it had to respond to the request by 210 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c).

[7] ECCC had not responded to the access request when the extension of time expired. I conclude that ECCC did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the extended period. ECCC is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

[8] The investigation revealed that there are 3,726 pages of records potentially responsive to the access request. Four Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), the Environmental Protection Operations Directorate (EPOD), Carbon Markets Bureau (CMB), the Energy and Transportation Directorate (ETD) and the Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch (SPIAB), took between six and nine months to send all relevant documents to the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office, while other OPIs provided their records to the ATIP office as early as October 2024.

[9] I find the delay taken by EPOD, CMB, SPIAB and ETD to retrieve all relevant records unacceptable. The lack of responsiveness from the OPIs has affected ECCC’s ability to meet its obligation to ensure that this access request was responded to in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Minister should remind her public officials of their responsibility in providing timely access to information to Canadians. The ATIP unit is not the only one responsible in ensuring that the Act is respected; it is a departmental and collective responsibility. It is up to the head of the institution, here the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, to ensure that this is understood and respected within the institution.

[10] Review of the records began on July 7, 2025, after the time extension had expired and only after receiving notice of the delay complaint. 2,708 out of 3,726 pages had been reviewed as of August 14, 2025. ECCC indicated that it expected the review of the records to be completed by September 30, 2025.

[11] ECCC explained that the delays in processing the records were caused by the large volume and the complexity of records, in addition to the immense workload of the ATIP office.

[12] Based on the records that had been reviewed as of August 14, 2025, ECCC noted that some of the records will require consultations with at least six third parties, three other government departments, a provincial government and ECCC’s Legal Services for potential Cabinet confidences. Taking into account the volume of records and the number of consultations, ECCC indicated that it would require approximately one month to send out the consultation packages and expected the consultation process to be completed by March 31, 2026.

[13] Sections 27 and 28 of the Act set out a legislated process for institutions to give third parties the opportunity to provide representations.

[14] While recognizing that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for an institution to consult, ECCC bears the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that the consultation process does not unduly delay access.

[15] ECCC anticipated taking approximately 35 working days for the approval process and 3 additional working days to prepare and send the final response. ECCC explained that it would provide a complete response to the access request by May 15, 2026. It noted that it would provide an interim release package where applicable.

[16] I find the May 2026 date to be unreasonable, given the length of time that the response to the access request has been outstanding without significant progress, and how ECCC seemingly waited for the OIC complaint before acting on it. The complainant has now been waiting nearly one year for a response to their access request. Any additional day that is taken to respond to this request is another day by which the complainant’s rights of access are being denied. This delay is unacceptable and is in clear contravention of ECCC’s obligations under the Act and undermines the credibility of the access system.

[17] ECCC noted in its representations that the team responsible for processing the request must manage multiple complaints related to access to information, as well as other voluminous requests. This should not unduly affect a requester’s right to a timely response. ECCC should maintain enough employees in its ATIP office to respond both to access requests and to complaints in a timely manner, and could consider investing in tools designed to automate repetitive processes to enable the reallocation of human resources to tasks requiring decision-making (see my systemic investigation Access at issue: The unsustainable status quo for more about similar steps taken by other institutions).

[18] ECCC must respond to the request within the shortest amount of time possible. Any response must necessarily be compliant with ECCC’s other obligations under the Act, including the obligation to respond to the request accurately, completely and in a timely manner. Taking into account the work that remains outstanding, as well as the necessary consultations with third parties, I conclude that it is appropriate for ECCC to provide a response to the request by March 16, 2026, and to provide interim responses as they become available.

Outcome

[19] The complaint is well founded.

Orders and recommendations

I order the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to:

  • issue interim responses for documents not requiring consultation and for which the review has been completed; and
  • provide a complete response to the access request no later than March 16, 2026.

I recommend that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change:

  • develop processes and procedures to ensure that ECCC’s OPIs will abide to their responsibilities and provide responsive records to the ATIP office in a timely manner; and
  • develop performance indicators to hold its officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to ECCC’s ATIP office.

Initial report and notice from institution

On September 11, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my orders and recommendations.

On September 25, 2025, the Director of the Access to Information and Privacy division gave me notice that ECCC would be implementing my orders and recommendations. In particular, ECCC noted that its senior management receives regular reminders of the important of responding to requests for records in a timely manner, and ECCC is continually looking at ways to improve its processes to ensure timely responses and offers regular training to OPIs. ECCC also believes that the implementation of ATIPXpress software by the end of the fiscal year will further facilitate interactions between the ATIP office and program officials, and it is supporting enterprise tools for deduplication. ECCC will also implement new quarterly performance indicators for branch heads, and the Deputy had made a commitment to hold officials accountable and to improve information management.

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.

Date modified:
Submit a complaint