WxT Language switcher

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 29

Date: 2026-03-16
OIC file number: 5825-03323
Access request number: A-2025-00806

Summary

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information relating to Microsoft Teams. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the time extension claimed for 390 days was unreasonable because the justification provided by ISED failed to demonstrate that there was a link between the reasons for the extension of time and its length or that ISED made a serious attempt to determine the length of the extension. Additionally, the investigation found that there was a significant delay before ISED began the processing of the request.

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 had every intention of implementing the order.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the extension of time Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for:

  1. All Microsoft Teams messages sent between September 2 and 12, 2025 at the EX-5 level. Separated by individual.
  2. Any official Microsoft Teams usage and/or retention policies or guidelines.
  3. The “Teams usage report” and “Teams user activity report” for specified time period.

[2]Timeframe: May 26, 2025, to present day (August 27, 2025).

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

Investigation

[4]ISED received the access request on August 27, 2025. ISED extended the period for responding to the request by 240 days under paragraph 9(1)(a) and 150 days under paragraph 9(1)(b), to October 21, 2026. An interim release of 19 pages, relating to items 2 and 3 of the request, was sent to the complainant on September 29, 2025.

Reasonable length of extension of time

[5]Paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c) allow institutions to extend the 30-day period for responding to access requests if the length of the extension of time is reasonable and justified in the circumstances. If this requirement is not met, the extension of time is not valid, with the result that 30 days remains the applicable time limit for responding to the request.

[6]In taking an extension of time, an institution must show the following:

  • It made a serious effort to assess the necessary length of the extension of time.
  • There is a link between the reasons the extension of time is needed and the length of the extension.
  • The calculation of the length of the extension was sufficiently rigorous, logical and supportable, such that it would pass a reasonableness review.

Is the length of the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(a) reasonable given the circumstances?

[7]ISED claimed 240 days for the volume of records and interference with institutional operations. ISED officials provided the following justification for paragraph 9(1)(a):

  • The records comprise 1,346 pages of Teams messages
  • The processing of the request places a significant operational strain on ISED’s Access to information and Privacy (ATIP) office because of the volume of records, the complexity of the material, and the requirement for EX-level review.
  • The EX-level Director’s operational capacity allows the review of approximately 250 pages per 30-day period.
  • The records contain sensitive, senior-level CER-related information that cannot be delegated to junior staff or non-excluded personnel. As a result, the processing of the request requires sustained, specialized, and time-intensive review that exceeds normal operational demands.
  • The Microsoft Teams chats included in the request cover very different subject matters, which require extended research and consultation with multiple Offices of Primary Interest. Each topic involves distinct operational or program areas, and careful review is necessary to ensure accuracy, context, and appropriate application of exemptions. This diversity of content increases the complexity of the review and contributes to the overall time required to respond to the request.

[8]Together, however, these facts do not demonstrate that there is a link between the reasons for the extension of time and its length or that ISED made a serious attempt to determine the length of the extension. It is my view that 240 days, or eight months, to review 1,346 pages of records is excessive. Most of the justification for the time claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a) refers to the argument that the records must be reviewed by senior level employes who are limited by their “operational capacity” and can only review 250 pages per month. ISED submitted that these senior level employees have competing priorities and that “increasing the pace of review beyond the current allocation would materially interfere with the performance of core executive responsibilities”. While I recognize that workload can influence an institution’s ability to respond to access requests, this should not unduly affect a requester’s right to a timely response. In these circumstances, ISED has not adequately explained how it arrived at a 250-page per month limit for its reviewers.

[9]Based on the above, I concluded that ISED failed to demonstrate that the length of time claimed under paragraph 9(1)(a) is reasonable. ISED did not provide sufficient evidence to show that claiming an additional 240 days for volume and interference was reasonable in the present circumstances.

Is the length of the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(b) reasonable given the circumstances?

[10]ISED took the 150-day portion of the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(b) in order to conduct internal and external consultations. ISED claimed that its legal services office requires 120 days for its review for possible Cabinet confidences and that consultations will be sent after June 19, 2026, with an expected return date of August 24, 2026.

[11]Based on the above, I concluded that ISED failed to demonstrate that the length of time claimed under paragraph 9(1)(b) is reasonable. ISED did not provide any further justification for the length of the extension such as details of any other anticipated external consultations or the number of pages on which the consultations are required. It is my view that ISED did not provide sufficient evidence to show that claiming an additional 150 days for consultations was reasonable in the present circumstances.

Subsection 10(3): deemed refusal of access

[12]Since the extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) is invalid, I concluded that ISED is deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3).

[13]As a result, ISED officials were asked to provide further information about the processing of the request. In response, ISED put forth the same arguments provided to the Office of the Information Commissioner in their original representations to justify the time extension. ISED officials advised that the review of records was initiated only on January 5, 2026, four months after the receipt of the request and that the review would be completed by June 19, 2026. Consultations will be completed by August 24, 2026. ISED proposed a slightly earlier response than the extended due date with an anticipated release date of September 25, 2026.

[14]The complainant has now been waiting over five months for a response to their access request, and no substantive processing has taken place. 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.

[15]ISED must respond to the request within the shortest amount of time possible. Any response must necessarily be compliant with ISED’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, I conclude that it is appropriate for ISED to provide a response to the request within 60 business days following the date of the final report, and that ISED cannot complete this work in a materially lesser amount of time.

Outcome

[16]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 February 24, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order(s).

On March 11, 2026, the Director, ATIP Services, gave me notice that ISED has every intention to comply with the 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.

Date modified:
Submit a complaint