Parks Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 25
Date: 2026-02-23
OIC file number: 5825-03537
Access request number: A-2025-00016
Summary
The complainant alleged that Parks Canada 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 data, notes, and correspondence within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, including observations and data, that reveals the impacts from human activity and coastal erosion that are damaging sensitive areas that hold high cultural significance, as well as records that lead to the decision to close the park. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Parks Canada was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by technical issues, staffing shortages, required consultations with multiple third parties, and the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy office to process the request in a timely manner. Parks Canada said it would provide a partial response on February 27, 2026, and the complete response to the access request on April 30, 2026, following the completion of necessary third-party consultations.
The Information Commissioner ordered that Parks Canada provide a complete response to the access request no later April 30, 2026.
Parks Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.
The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1]The complainant alleged that Parks Canada did not respond to an access request within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all data, notes, and correspondence within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, including observations and data, that reveals the impacts from human activity and coastal erosion that are damaging sensitive areas that hold high cultural significance, as well as records that lead to the decision to close the park. 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]Parks Canada received the access request on May 5, 2025. On June 2, 2025, Parks Canada extended the period within which it had to respond by 145 days under paragraphs 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c), making the time limit to respond October 27, 2025.
[7]Parks Canada did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude, therefore, that Parks Canada did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the extended period. Parks Canada is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[8]The investigation revealed that the access request generated approximately 5,544 pages of potentially responsive records. Parks Canada’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office received the responsive records from four Offices of Primary Interest by May 28, 2025, and the review process remains ongoing. Parks Canada explained that there was a delay in being able to advance the file until the fall of 2025 due to staffing shortages and a number of new employees. Furthermore, technical issues with the redaction software used by the ATIP office prevented work on the records for several weeks.
[9]I find the delay taken to resolve the technical issues unacceptable. Institutions should ensure ATIP processing software and tools are thoroughly tested and provide the necessary functions in order to facilitate timely access, and that the necessary functions and timely support services are available to ATIP staff.
[10]Parks Canada explained that due to the sensitivity and complexity of the records, it deemed it necessary to apply certain redactions prior to initiating the consultations. Additionally, Parks Canada explained that it works collaboratively with First Nations through ongoing governance structures, making the careful handling of culturally sensitive information essential to maintaining trust and reconciliation-based relationships. As such, the ATIP office explained that it requires additional time to process the request in order to ensure that First Nations partners are provided a meaningful opportunity to review the information and provide their representations prior to any final disclosure decision.
[11]During the investigation, Parks Canada said it would provide a partial response on February 27, 2026, and the complete response to the access request on April 30, 2026, explaining that the delay was the result of a heavy workload for the ATIP unit, coupled with the complexity and sensitivity of the requested records. In addition, Parks Canada anticipated having to send at least 1,352 pages to over a dozen third parties for consultation.
[12]Parks Canada indicated that it would send out necessary third-party consultations upon completion of the review process. Sections 27 and 28 of the Act set out a legislated process for institutions to give third parties the opportunity to provide representations as to why records should not be disclosed.
[13]While recognizing that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for an institution to consult, Parks Canada bears the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that the consultation process does not unduly delay access.
[14]Furthermore, whereby Parks Canada attributed delays to competing priorities, staffing shortages, and technical issues – I note that none of this rationale is supported by the Act. While I recognize that staffing shortages can influence an institution’s ability to respond to access requests, this should not unduly affect a requester’s right to a timely response. Parks Canada should maintain enough employees in its ATIP office to respond to access requests in a timely manner, and could consider investing in tools designed to automate repetitive processes to enable the reallocation of human resources to tasks requiring decision-making (see my systemic investigation Access at issue: The unsustainable status quo for more about similar steps taken by other institutions).
[15]Parks Canada must respond to the access request within the shortest amount of time possible. Any response must necessarily be compliant with Parks Canada’s other obligations under the Act, including the obligation to respond to the access request accurately, completely and in a timely manner. Taking into account the work that remains outstanding, including a reasonable amount of time to complete necessary third-party consultations, I conclude that it is appropriate for Parks Canada to provide a partial response by February 27, 2026, and the final response to the request by April 30, 2026.
Outcome
[16]The complaint is well founded.
Order
I order the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 30, 2026.
Initial report and notice from institution
On February 5, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada, setting out my order.
On February 19, 2026, the Acting President & Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada gave me notice that Parks Canada 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.