Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 OIC 13
Date: 2025-07-07
OIC file number: 5824-03298
Access request number: A-2023-00882
Summary
The complainant alleged that Privy Council Office (PCO) 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 IAC assessments dealing with Russia and countries of the former Soviet Union in the year 1992. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
The information Commissioner concluded that the delay was unacceptable, and that the proposed response date of October 3, 2025, by PCO was unreasonable. Not only did PCO take over a year to initiate consultations with other government departments, but in determining the estimated response date, PCO allotted themselves an additional 3 months for internal consultation following the receipt of consultation responses set for July 2025, which the Commissioner determined was unjustified.
The Information Commissioner Ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days following the date of the final report.
The Information Commissioner recommended the Clerk of the Privy Council to review PCO’s internal consultation and approval processes related to access to information requests in order to become more efficient and to respect its obligations under section 7 of the Act.
PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.
The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1]The complainant alleged that Privy Council Office (PCO) 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 the following:
All IAC assessments (IAs, SIRs, and other reports; all versions of such reports, including codeword, non-codeword, CEO and allied versions) dealing with Russia and the countries of the Former Soviet Union produced during the period 1 January to 31 December 1992. These records are held in the National Security Branch special archives.
[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]PCO received the access request on January 29, 2024. On February 28, 2024, PCO extended the period within which it had to respond to the request by 270 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), making the time limit to respond November 25, 2024.
[8]PCO did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude, therefore, that PCO did not meet its obligation to respond within the extended period. PCO is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[9]Based on information provided by PCO, on January 29, 2024, Intelligence Assessment Secretariat (IAS) was tasked with retrieving any relevant records. IAS returned 380 pages of records classified above the top-secret level on February 5, 2024.
[10]Following a preliminary review, PCO determined that consultations would need to be held with Global Affairs Canada, National Defence, Communications Security Establishment, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. PCO noted that consultation send-out was delayed due to the classification of the records, creating additional complexity through packages needing to be prepared manually. As a result, these consultations were only sent out on May 9, 2025, and responses are expected back on July 11, 2025, although PCO intends to expedite these deadlines where possible.
[11]Following the completion of these consultations, PCO determined that they will then need an internal consultation with their National Security Council, which will take 50 days to complete once sent.
[12]Given these timelines and taking into account additional time needed for working with the highly classified records, including manual preparations, PCO has provided an estimated date of disclosure of October 3, 2025.
[13]I find the delay in processing this request unacceptable, including taking over a year to initiate any necessary consultations with other government departments. Also, I consider the time allotted by PCO to complete the processing of the file once anticipated consultations are complete unjustified. Specifically, PCO dedicated approximately three additional months to complete its “internal consultation”, which amounts to final review and approvals, following receipt of consultation responses set for July 2025. I am not convinced that PCO cannot complete this work in a materially lesser amount of time. I find that PCO’s internal consultation and approval processes are inefficient and should be reviewed in order for PCO to respect its obligations under the Act. Given all of the above, I will order that PCO respond without further delay.
Outcome
[14]The complaint is well founded.
Order and Recommendation
I order the Clerk of the Privy Council to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 60 business days following the date of the final report.
I recommend to the Clerk of the Privy Council to review PCO’s internal consultation and approval processes related to access to information requests in order to become more efficient and to respect its obligations under section 7 of the Act.
Initial report and notice from institution
On May 29, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Clerk setting out my order and recommendation.
On June 18, 2025, the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Ministerial Services and Corporate Affairs, gave me notice that PCO would be implementing my order. There are 246 pages of responsive records for this request and consultations are required with Global Affairs Canada, National Defence, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment. These consultations are expected to be completed by July 11, 2025. Once received, a review from the Intelligence Assessment Staff will be required. PCO is expediting the review of records in order to provide a response as set out above.
PCO did not, however, indicate, in reply to my initial report whether they would be initiating any review of their internal consultation and approval processes, as a result of my recommendation.
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.