Privy Council Office (Re), 2025 OIC 61

Date: 2025-12-09
OIC file number: 5824-04109
Access request number: A-2024-00490

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for All documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from April 1, 2024, to the present, respecting allegations concerning the ethics of an individual in relation to their associations with other individuals and organizations.

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

The investigation determined that not all of the responsible Offices of Primary Interest were tasked for the responsive records. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. A search by an Office of Primary Interest that was not initially tasked, located 142 pages of records relevant to the request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide the subsequent response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the Final Report.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for the following:

[2]All documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from April 1, 2024, to the present, respecting allegations concerning the ethics of an individual in relation to their associations with other individuals and organizations.

[3]The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Investigation

[4]PCO was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request—that is, one or more experienced employees, knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request, must have made reasonable efforts to identify and locate all records reasonably related to the request.

[5]A reasonable search involves a level of effort that would be expected of any fair, sensible person tasked with searching for responsive records where they are likely to be stored.

[6]This search does not have to be perfect. An institution is therefore not required to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. Institutions must however be able to show that they took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records.

Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for records?

[7]The potential records at issue comprise records related to allegations concerning the ethics of the former Minister, Randy Boissonnault. A parliamentary ethics committee examined the former minister’s business affairs following allegations that the former minister and his business associates benefitted from his position in cabinet.

[8]Following receipt of the request, the PCO Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) officials tasked several Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) to search for relevant records, including the Machinery of Government, the Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, CSB, Legislation and House Planning, Social Development Policy and Operations and Cabinet Affairs. Each OPI provided a nil response to the ATIP office. In response to the access request, PCO advised the complainant that no records relevant to the request were found.

[9]During the course of the investigation, the complainant provided representations, to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), concerning the possible existence of relevant records. The complainant maintains the following:

Given the extensive amount of parliamentary attention, through both several committee meetings and a successful question of privilege in the House of Commons, on top of extended media coverage of Randy Boissonnault’s business activities between 2019 and 2021, and questions and concerns about ongoing corporate activities and whether Mr. Boissonnault was engaged in those, it strikes me as highly unlikely that the Privy Council Office would have absolutely no records related to these issues, committee meetings, parliamentary proceedings or otherwise, over the 7.5-month period of the request.
Given that these issues culminated in Mr. Boissonnault’s departure from the Cabinet within days of the request, it would be highly irregular that the PCO, which is often called “the Prime Minister’s department”, would prove to be so ‘blindsided’ by such developments building over time. Attention to these accumulating issues would likely have been paid by various PCO secretariats, including Legislation and House Planning, Communications, Machinery of Government, as well as those policy secretariats related to Mr. Boissonnault’s portfolio responsibilities and his “Ministerial Lead for Jasper” assignment, not to mention the possibility of the National Security and Intelligence Advisor’s branch.

[10]At this point in the investigation, the OIC also questioned the absence of records relating to such a high profile issue that generated considerable parliamentary and media attention at the time.

[11]In light of the above, the OIC was of the preliminary view that a reasonable search was not conducted for the requested records.

[12]As a result, the OIC sought representations from PCO under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Act. In response, PCO officials confirmed that PCO originally tasked five OPIs to search for relevant records: Machinery of Government (MOG), Social Development Policy (SDP), Legislation & House Planning (L&HP), Operations and Cabinet Affairs (OCA) and the Assistant Deputy Minister's Office (CSB ADMO). PCO also confirmed that CSB-ADMO, MOG, OCA, L&HP and SDP all provided nil responses to the taskings.

[13]As part of the OIC’s request for representations from PCO, the OIC asked PCO officials to provide details of the search for records conducted in response to the access request and to explain why each of the OPIs provided a nil response/why no records exist, taking into account the representations from the complainant as described above. PCO provided the following explanation for each OPI:

OCA confirmed that their secretariat does not play a role in the subject matter outlined in this request and therefore do not have any relevant records to provide.
L&HP confirmed that the search for records was conducted electronically (emails, document folders and corresponding documents for correspondence, briefing notes and memos as well as Microsoft Teams.) A NIL response was provided as this secretariat was not involved in any files, transactions or emails for the parameters of the subject matter of this request.
SDP confirmed that they conducted a search for the following, and that a NIL response was provided as the subject matter does not relate to any ongoing files: “April 1, 2024, to the present, respecting allegations concerning the ethics of the Honourable Randy Boissonnault", "Kristin Poon", "Stephen Anderson", "Global Health Imports", "Xennex Venture Catalysts and Navis Group", "Michael Barrett's notice of motion provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee".
CSB-ADMO confirmed that they continue to have no relevant records. At the time this request was submitted to PCO, Minister Boissonnault was in charge of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). Records would not be held by their secretariat as PCO CSB would only support our Ministers.
MOG confirmed that the subject matter in the request is not related to the business of the Machinery of Government Secretariat. MOG was only involved following the resignation of Minister Boissonnault, given that there was a need to appoint a successor as Minister of Employment and Social Development. Consequently, there were no files to search within the MOG secretariat as the subject matter being requested was outside the scope of their operations.

[14]PCO also confirmed that the Office of the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister coordinates operational and policy advice, in the areas of foreign affairs, defence, national security and intelligence and therefore would not have any records relating to this request.

[15]Finally, PCO officials advised the OIC that, following the complaint, they additionally tasked the secretariat of Communications and Consultations (COMMS). As a result, COMMS provided relevant records relating to media questions and answers on the allegations concerning the ethics of then Minister Boissonnault. PCO has committed to process the records as quickly as possible.

[16]Based on the above, I am now satisfied that PCO has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. While PCO officials did not provide my office with a date by which a subsequent response will be sent, I conclude that 36 business days from the date of receipt of my Final Report is an appropriate amount of time for PCO to provide the supplementary response to the request.

Outcome

[17]The complaint is well founded because not all of the responsible OPIs were originally tasked.

Order

I order the Clerk of the Privy Council Office to:

Complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request.
Process all additional pages of records located as a result of the additional searches.
Provide a supplementary response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the receipt of the Final Report.
Give the complainant access to responsive records, unless access to them, or to part of them, may be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act. When this is the case, name the provision(s).

Initial report and notice from institution

On October 29, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Clerk of the Privy Council setting out my order.

On November 28, 2025, the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs gave me notice that PCO would be implementing the order. PCO advised my office that there are 142 pages of responsive records for this request and review from PCO’s Communications & Consultations and Security & Intelligence secretariats is required. PCO is expediting the review of records in order to provide a response as set out above.

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, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.