Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada Re), 2026 OIC 20
Date: 2026-02-20
OIC file number: 5825-02144
Access request number: A-2024-00695
Summary
The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) 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 concerning parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, agreements between manufactures and the Government of Canada to support the establishment of these facilities, and the use of foreign workers in connection with these facilities, during a specific time period. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
The investigation determined ISED 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 a lack of responsiveness from one office of primary interest.
The Information Commissioner ordered that ISED provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days after the date of the final report.
ISED gave notice to the Commissioner that it has every intention of implementing the order.
The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1]The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) 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 concerning parliamentary consideration of electric vehicle battery manufacturing facilities, agreements between manufactures and the Government of Canada to support the establishment of these facilities, and the use of foreign workers in connection with these facilities, during a specific time period.
[2]The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Investigation
Time limits for responding to access requests
[3]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).
[4]Nevertheless, the institution is still required to provide a response to the access request.
What is a response?
[5]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.
[6]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?
[7]ISED received the access request on August 20, 2024. On September 19, 2024, ISED extended the period within which it had to respond to the request by 300 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), making the deadline to respond July 16, 2025.
[8]ISED did not respond to the access request by this date. I conclude, therefore, that ISED did not meet its obligation to respond within the extended period. ISED is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[9]ISED advised that two Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) – the Office of Corporate Secretary (OCS), and the Industry Sector (IS) – were tasked for records between November 2024 and February 2025. OCS provided the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) unit with 369 pages of records. However, ISED stated that the IS sector has yet to provide records and is unable to provide a date by which the records would be retrieved and sent. According to ISED, the IS sector has prioritized work on tariffs and the automotive industry. Additionally, ISED have represented that “the IS team is faced with a significant volume of large-scale [access] requests being processed concurrently, with limited staff/resources with the necessary knowledge of the files to process the requests. This increased workload coincided with a decrease in staff and resources, requirement management to prioritize work in a way that reflected the large-scale challenges facing the sector”. ISED expects approximately 2,377 pages of records from the IS sector. It advised that the records from OCS have been reviewed and that consultations – both internal and external - are expected. ISED also confirmed that a consultation with their Legal Services unit, to confirm the existence of Cabinet Confidences, will be required, including separate consultations with at least three third parties.
[10]ISED did not provide a date by which a response to the access request would be sent.
[11]I find the delay taken by the IS sector to retrieve all relevant records unacceptable. The lack of responsiveness from this sector has affected ISED’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 Industry, to ensure that this is understood and respected within the institution.
[12]The complainant has now been waiting almost 18 months 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 lack of responsiveness is in clear contravention of ISED’s obligations under the Act and undermines the credibility of the access system.
[13]Considering the work that still needs to be done and possible required consultations, I find that ISED must respond to the request within 60 business days following the date of the final report.
Outcome
[14]The complaint is well founded.
Order
I order the Minister of Industry to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days following the date of the final report.
Initial report and notice from institution
On January 20, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order.
On February 5, 2026, the Director, ATIP Services, gave me notice that ISED has every intention to comply with 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.