Library and Archives Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 4

Date: 2026-01-08
OIC file number: 5824-03656
Access request number: A-2024-05507

Summary

The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request for various information relating to the Metis Nation in Canada, Treaties and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, within the 30day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

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

The investigation determined that the access request was too broad and expansive and was not specific enough that any targeted record or records could, with a reasonable effort, be identified. Responding to the access request as written would require LAC to undertake historical and legal research that goes beyond reasonable efforts to identify responsvie records. As a result, since the request did not meet the requirements of section 6, LAC was not required to respond to the access request and LAC was therefore not in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is not well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that Library and Archives Canada (LAC) did not respond to an access request for the following within the 30day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act:

All Crown disclosure (as defined} - relating to the underlying, absolute, independent, parallel, Métis sui-generis joint tenancy land title across Canada; recognizing that all Métis Nations in Canada have collective ownership of 99.7% of Canada. (1/338 recognized Federal election districts were previously disclosed to have been sold by a Métis Nation.) This includes the Order-in-Council signed May 6, 1899, for the purpose of an open / potential Métis Nation of Canada land claim.

All evidence that the Métis Nation of Canada is nationally recognized as an Indigenous representative (since 2009).

Name & population of every community, encampment, hamlet, municipality, village, town, city: in every recognized federal election district, which is situated on non-ceded Métis underlying, absolute, parallel, independent titled land; ( as Ordered in the Royal Proclamation 1763 as lands reserved for Indians, i.e. Indigenous Reservations ; and which has never been sold by the Métis Nations in Canada to the Crown (if the Métis title has not been purchased by the Crown, it remains as "Lands Reserved" for Métis; so each of these communities shall be enumerated) (as of 2024)." "Enumerate the Date of Crown ownership control: for each recognized Federal election district of present-day Canada; because of purchasing the joint tenancy land rights from the Métis Nations in Canada, & First Nations combined (since 1899-05-06).

All communications containing or referring to all British, Province of Canada, Dominion of Canada, Commonwealth of Canada -Treaties; which purchased the Métis underlying, absolute, parallel, independent, Aboriginal land title; & which otherwise encumber Crown title (since January 1763)."

A certified copy of the Nanfan - Montreal 1701 (signed July & August 1701) joint Treaty in both modern official languages. Including recognition that the One Dish One Spoon Wampum belt was annexed to the Treaty; and recognition that all Indigenous peoples of Canada have farming & harvesting (fur, fin, feather) rights in the Iroquois Confederacy and 39 signatory Nations (from Cape Breton Island to the Mississippi River, From the Ohio River to James Bay) territories.

All communications containing or referring to the Royal Proclamation 1763 annexed to the Niagara Treaty 1764 and Two row Wampum Treaty belt; including Orders that the lands in the former New France were Indigenous Reservations; lands reserved for Indigenous peoples of the future Canada, until the Crown may purchase 100% of the Indigenous land title from the joint tenancy of the various First Nations & Métis Nations in Canada (since January 1763).

All communications containing or referencing Hopson Treaty 1752 annexed to the Mascerene Treaty 1725/6 and Dummer's Treaty 1725/6 - all signatories, & Crown Orders to signatories, heirs of signatories, and extended family and descendants, to recruit individuals and Nations across North America (Turtle Island} in perpetuity. Including military notes (since 1752).

All communications with Native Women's Association of Canada, Congress of Aboriginal People, Labrador Métis Nation aka. Nunatukavut Community Council, Métis National Council, MMF, or Assembly of First Nations to denounce Métis Nation of Canada; or misrepresent the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. vs. Daniels (April 2016) (since January 2003).

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

Investigation

[3]During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that, after attempts to obtain clarification from the complainant failed, LAC determined that the access request was too broad, too vague, and lacked sufficient archival references for LAC to reasonably identify responsive records. As such, LAC concluded that the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Act.

Section 6: accepting access requests

[4]Institutions must accept an access request that meets all of the following requirements under section 6:

It must be in writing.
It must be made to the institution that has control of the requested records.
It must provide enough detail that experienced institutional employees could identify relevant records with a reasonable effort.

[5]If the access request does not provide enough detail for experienced employees of the institution to identify records with a reasonable effort, the institution must promptly seek clarification from the requester, in keeping with its obligations under subsection 4(2.1).

[6]If the access request remains unclear after the institution has made every reasonable effort to seek clarification, the institution does not have to make further efforts to clarify the request and may choose not to accept it. When the requester provides enough detail, the institution must accept the request.

Was it reasonable for LAC to refuse to process the request pursuant to section 6?

[7]The access request was made in writing and made to the institution with control of the requested records, thereby meeting the first two requirements of section 6.

[8]With respect to the third requirement — that the access request must provide enough detail for experienced institutional employees to identify relevant records with a reasonable effort — LAC officials and the complainant provided the following representations:

[9]LAC maintains that the subject matter of the request is too broad and expansive and that the request does not offer any particulars by which any targeted record or records can, with a reasonable amount of effort, be identified. LAC argues that the request encompasses many files that could be found throughout its collection, many of which could already be open and available to the public without recourse to the Act (for example, a “certified copy of the Nanfan - Montreal 1701 joint Treaty”). It is LAC’s view that the information provided is not sufficient for the following reasons, among others, to identify specific restricted records that would fall under the control of LAC for the purposes of the Act:

It would be unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, to identify records for “all Crown disclosure … relating to … Métis sui-generis tenancy land title across Canada.” LAC organizes its archival records at the file level, not the document level. Even so, the request does not clearly identify specific documents, and it is not clear which documents would be considered responsive by the complainant.
The statement “evidence that the Métis Nation of Canada is nationally recognized as an Indigenous representative (since 2009)” requires clarification before LAC could begin to identify what might qualify as “evidence” of such.
In order to identify “treaties which purchased the Métis … land title … since January 1763,” “all communications containing or referring to the Royal Proclamation 1763” and “all communications containing or referencing Hopson Treaty …. since 1752” without specific archival file references, LAC would have to review the contents of over three centuries’ worth of paper documents.

[10]The complainant argues that all communications within a container or file should be relevant. The complainant submits that LAC requested that they identify a specific communication and that LAC also claims not to have the ability to identify individual records or make any key word searches. The complainant adds that LAC, is the only government institution demanding that the complainant provide specifics such as archival references as a condition of receiving a response to their access request.

[11]According to LAC, responding to the access request would require LAC to undertake research that goes beyond reasonable efforts to identify records (e.g., extensive historical and/or legal research into treaties that would then need to be juxtaposed against map of electoral districts, legal interpretation of communications to, for example, determine whether a communication misrepresented a Supreme Court of Canada decision). LAC maintains that the institution is not responsible for conducting research but has many services to assist researchers with their queries. The LAC Access to Information and Privacy team does not conduct research projects of this magnitude; rather, it is LAC’s responsibility to review restricted material identified by researchers for release to the public.

[12]The complainant argues that LAC is demanding that they hire researchers and archivists and is effectively demanding that they hire their own interpreter. For example, the Montreal Treaty 1701 is printed in French only. The complainant takes the position that the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples Act requires that the Crown provide all funding for any researchers and archivists that LAC might demand.

[13]LAC’s efforts to clarify the access request were in keeping with its obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act. Following receipt of the request, LAC sent an email to the complainant seeking clarification.

[14]Additionally, the complainant was advised of the following:

They could consult with LAC’s Reference Services, which has archivists that specialize in Indigenous records who could help identify the requested files.
Much of the requested material is likely to be open for public consultation. Specific information is required to conduct a proper search of the records in LAC’s collection, such as specific geographical locations and timelines. LAC noted that as the access request stands, it is difficult to identify specific restricted files of interest.
Records excluded from the Act include many files dating from prior to 1900, many of which are available online. The material can also be consulted on site, or copies ordered from LAC’s reprography team. A researcher can also be hired if the complainant is unable to come on site. Previous access request release packages are also regularly added to LAC’s online database.

[15]LAC maintained that, despite at least two attempts to obtain clarification, it did not receive further responses from the complainant, that the complainant did not engage with LAC and that they provided no further information about the access request.

[16]LAC concluded that because the complainant did not provide additional details or specific locations for the records, LAC could not proceed with processing the access request.

[17]The complainant argued that LAC officials do not have the right to refuse to process the access request based on the reasons provided. Additionally, according to the complainant, LAC cannot ask that a request be amended and that asking them to conduct their own research or use the research tools provided by LAC is an unreasonable demand.

[18]Based on all of the above, the OIC is satisfied that the access request is too broad and expansive and is not specific enough that any targeted record or records can, with a reasonable effort, be identified. The complainant’s position does not seem to acknowledge the way in which archival materials are stored and organized, as explained by LAC. Without any archival file references, LAC has no starting point from which to begin its search for responsive records and simply reading through more than 300 years’ worth of documents is not reasonable in these circumstances.

[19]In addition, “identifying records with reasonable effort” does not include undertaking the extensive historical and geographical research that would be required by the access request as written. Similarly, reasonable efforts in these circumstances do not include LAC’s undertaking a legal analysis to identify responsive records.

[20]With respect to the complainant’s representations regarding clarification, LAC officials are within their rights to seek clarification for an access request when they conclude that it, as written, does not meet the requirements of section 6. In fact, LAC is obligated to seek clarification in such circumstances. It is a shared responsibility between the requester and the institution to ensure that section 6 requirements are met.

[21]LAC also referred the complainant to LAC’s Reference Services and provided the link to this service to assist the complainant in refining the access request. The complainant did not make use of this service. The OIC concludes that the suggestion by LAC was not unreasonable and was, in fact, in keeping with the spirit of subsection 4(2.1).

[22]The OIC concludes that the access request does not provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution to identify with a reasonable effort the records responsive to the request.

[23]This interpretation, in the OIC’s view, is consistent with Parliament’s intent in setting out criteria for a valid access request in section 6. The OIC is also satisfied that by attempting to better define the request and offering its reference services, albeit without success, LAC fulfilled its obligation to assist the complainant.

[24]Since the request does not meet the requirements of section 6, LAC was not required to respond to the access request. LAC is therefore not in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3).

Outcome

[25]The complaint is not well founded.

Review by the 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.

The complainant must apply for this review within 35 business days after the date of this report and must serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43.