Indigenous Services Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 56

Date: 2026-07-31
OIC file number: 5825-02615
Access request number: ISC-A-2024-00406

Summary

The complainant alleged that ISC did not respond by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request for all transactions and communications which aid in providing safe drinking water to Grassy Narrows First Nation for the duration of their Boil Water Advisory, over twenty-five years. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

ISC initially received a large volume of responsive records, which resulted in the file being placed on backlog. To address the volume, the scope of the request was narrowed substantially. Given this change, ISC was asked to provide a work plan, including an estimated date of response. ISC did not provide any representations to this effect. The Information Commissioner ordered that ISC provide a complete response to the access request no later than 75 business days following the date of the final report. The Corporate Secretary 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) 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 all transactions and communications which aid in providing safe drinking water to Grassy Narrows First Nation for the duration of their Boil Water Advisory, over twenty-five years. 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]ISC received the access request on February 18, 2025. On March 21, 2025, ISC extended the period within which it had to respond to the request by 150 days under paragraph 9(1)(a), making the time limit to respond August 18, 2025.

[7]ISC did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude, therefore, that ISC did not meet its obligation to respond within the extended period. ISC is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

[8]Based on information provided by ISC, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Regional Operations, and Ontario Region were tasked with retrieving any relevant records. All records were returned by April 2, 2025, totalling 17,608 pages of electronic records. Following this retrieval, ISC determined that records would need to be placed on backlog, citing two factors:

1. Certain records contained litigation-relevant information for an ongoing case;
2. The volume of records would interfere with operations.

[9]In their representations, ISC confirmed that as of late 2025, the litigation remains ongoing.

[10]As such, ISC was not in a position to provide a date by which it intends to provide a complete response to the request at that time.

[11]In an effort to address the volume of records, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) consulted with both ISC and the complainant to determine if there were any changes that could be made to the request to effectively narrow the scope and reduce the number of responsive records. These discussions took place between January 22, 2026, and March 23, 2026. During this time, ISC reviewed the records for areas that would best serve this purpose, and these were presented to the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant agreed to:

1. Restrict the request to only final versions;
2. Restrict the scope to only records that contain scientific analysis and sampling data, with the understanding that additional records could be requested later for records containing contracting information.

[12]On March 13, 2026, the OIC asked ISC for an estimate on how many records this change of scope would result in, and an estimated timeline for completion given this reduction. On March 18, 2026, ISC stated that this change of scope is estimated to result in an omission of over 10,000 pages, making the new total number of responsive records an estimated 6,500 pages. However, they were unable to provide a planned response date at that time, citing that at least three third party consultations would need to take place, and given the ongoing litigation, they could not predict the timeline for those consultations.

[13]Given the extensive change to the scope of the request, on April 7, 2026, ISC was asked to provide a work plan, detailing the work needed to be done and an estimated date of disclosure. Several follow-ups were made with ISC between April and June 2026, in order to obtain the requested work plan in an effort to better assess the work needed to be done to complete the processing of the request. To date, ISC has not provided any additional representations to this effect.

[14]ISC has a statutory obligation to ensure that access requests are responded to in accordance with the requirements of the Act on records that are under its control. While recognizing that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for an institution to consult another one for the purpose of responding to a request, the institution in receipt of the request bears the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that the consultation process does not unduly delay access.

[15]Sections 27 and 28 of the Act set out a legislated process for institutions to give third-parties the opportunity to provide representations. While recognizing that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for an institution to consult, ISC bears the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that the consultation process does not unduly delay access.

[16]Any additional time that is taken to respond to this request is another day by which the complainant’s rights of access are being denied. This lack of responsiveness is in clear contravention of ISC’s obligations under the Act and undermines the credibility of the access system.

[17]The complainant has now been waiting almost a year for a response to their access request after the expiry of a lengthy time extension. I note, as well, that the complainant agreed to significantly reduce the scope of the request. Despite these concessions on the part of the complainant, ISC was still not able to provide a detailed work plan that would set out the remaining work and time needed to complete the request. I find this unacceptable. Therefore, considering the length of time that the response to the access request has been outstanding, the reduced volume of records and the need to conduct third-party consultations, I find that ISC must respond to the request within 75 business days following the issuance of my final report. I find this to be an appropriate time to respond.

Outcome

[18]The complaint is well founded.

Order

I order the Minister of Indigenous Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 75 business days following the date of the final report.

Initial report and notice from institution

On July 6, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order.

On July 21, 2026, the Acting Corporate Secretary gave me notice that ISC would be implementing my order.

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.