Indigenous Services Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 30

Date: 2026-03-11
OIC file number: 5824-03979
Access request number: A-2024-00103

Summary

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for records related to a video posted to Facebook on June 18, 2024. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada’s Communications and Public Affairs unit identified that during the search for records, it had removed records deemed to be drafts, per its interpretation of the access request. As a result of the investigation, Indigenous Services Canada located 1,087 additional pages of records.

The Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services process the additional records and provide a new response within 36 business days.

The Corporate Secretary of Indigenous Services Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for:

Records related to this video, posted on June 18, 2024: "A group of young Métis have reconnected with their heritage in a unique way by organizing a canoe expedition in the footsteps of their ancestors. Listen to Minister Anandasangaree celebrate this remarkable feat! #NIHM2024"

[2]The records sought include, but are not limited to: emails, text messages, instant messages, briefing notes, memos, reports, departmental plans, presentations, meeting notes and meeting minutes, case files, correspondence, faxes, backgrounders, fact sheets, media lines and communications strategies, question period cards, agendas, project applications, work plans, risk assessments, due diligence reports, interim and final activity reports and budgets. Please exclude draft copies, media articles and French where English exists. Timeframe: June 22, 2023 to present day (June 19, 2024).

[3]The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Investigation

Reasonable search

[4]ISC 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.

[5]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.

[6]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?

[7]The complainant submitted that the request was for all records related to the referenced video, including all planning materials, approvals, and discussions prior to the creation of the video. The complainant noted that the earliest date in the response to the access request is May 28, 2024, which is after the video was created, and indicated that records predating the creation of the video should exist.

[8]During the course of the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) asked ISC to provide details related to the search for responsive records, in particular regarding tasking and search methodology. ISC responded that 5 Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) were tasked: Lands & Economic Development, Communications and Public Affairs (COMMS), Ontario Region, Education and Social Development Program, and Corporate Secretariat. ISC provided rationale for why each OPI was tasked. COMMS provided details regarding the search conducted, including information holdings searched and key words used. The remaining OPIs explained that they were not involved with the creation of the video and as such did not hold records responsive to the access request.

[9]COMMS identified that during the search for records, it had removed records deemed to be drafts, per its interpretation of the exclusion criteria of the access request. These removed records included all records on the logistics and arranging filming of the subject video as well as any approvals related to the video. ISC’s Access to Information & Privacy unit issued a secondary retrieval notice to COMMS and met with COMMS to ensure that draft records be provided for review to ensure that they met the exclusion criteria.

[10]As a result, ISC has retrieved a total of 232 documents totalling 1,087 additional pages. ISC has begun processing and reviewing the records, with approximately 430 pages remaining.

[11]ISC did not provide a date by which it intends to issue the supplementary response, however, it did advise that the review of the remaining records is ongoing and will progress over an estimated six-week period.

[12]Having reviewed the details of the search conducted, I find that the appropriate OPIs were tasked and that the parameters of the search conducted were appropriate. However, I find that the removal of the records due to the interpretation of the exclusion criteria used by COMMS was inappropriate and that as a result, the original search was not reasonable. That said, I conclude that ISC has now conducted a reasonable search for records.

Outcome

[13]The complaint is well founded as ISC did not originally conduct a reasonable search.

Orders and recommendations

I order the Minister of Indigenous Services to do the following:

1. Process all additional pages of records located as a result of the additional search.
2. Provide a supplementary response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.
3. Give the complainant access to any additional 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 March 4, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Indigenous Services setting out my orders.

On March 9, 2026, the Corporate Secretary gave me notice that ISC 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.