Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 OIC 22
Date: 2026-02-23
OIC file number: 5825-00392
Access request number: A-2023-01031
Summary
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request for Government communications regarding former House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota’s recognition of Yaroslav Hunka at the President of Ukraine’s September 2023 address to both Houses of Parliament. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report. PCO did not provide notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the Commissioner’s order. The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1]The complainant alleged that the 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:
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 September 1, 2023, to the present, respecting the events surrounding former House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota’s recognition of Yaroslav Hunka at the President of Ukraine’s September 2023 address to both Houses of Parliament.
[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 March 11, 2024, and extended the period within which it had to respond by 360 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), making the extended due date to respond April 7, 2025.
[8]PCO did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude, therefore, that PCO did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the extended period. PCO is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[9]PCO indicated that there are 10,178 pages of emails and attachments relevant to the access request. One consultation with Global Affairs Canada (Global Affairs) was still outstanding at the time of representations; however, PCO noted that they are sending an intent to disclose letter in order to respond to this request in a timely manner.
[10]Internal consultations with Communications, Foreign Defence & Policy, and Legislation and House Planning secretariats were expected on September 29, 2025.
[11]In light of the work remaining, PCO proposed an anticipated response deadline of October 24, 2025. However, PCO did not meet this deadline.
[12]The delay in completing the processing this request is unacceptable, especially seeing that the records have been reviewed and consultations completed. Any final approval and review processes should not serve as impediments to meeting the obligations imposed by the Act.
[13]Any additional time 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 PCO’s obligations under the Act and undermines the credibility of the access system.
[14]Considering all of the above, I find that PCO must respond to the request without further delay.
Outcome
[15]The complaint is well founded.
Order
I order the Clerk of the Privy Council to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.
Initial report and notice from institution
On December 12, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Clerk of the Privy Council setting out my order.
The Clerk of the Privy Council did not respond to my Initial Report within the established deadline of January 9, 2026, advising whether he would or would not comply with my order.
I remind the Clerk that if he does not plan to implement my order, he must apply to the Federal Court within the time limits set out in subsection 41(2).
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.