Privy Council Office (Re), 2026 OIC 34

Date: 2026-03-24
OIC file number: 5822-05248
Access request number: A-2021-00161

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all records produced by and related to Privy Council Office access request A-2012-00683, as well as all records that relate to the commission of and development of a 10-page “Lessons Learned” document commissioned by the Privy Council Office. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The onus is on institutions to provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Privy Council Office did not provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Privy Council Office to conduct a new search for records and to provide a supplementary response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the final report.

The Privy Council Office did not provide notice advising whether it would or would not comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all records produced by and related to PCO access request A-2012-00683, as well as all records that relate to the commission of and development of a 10-page “Lessons Learned” document commissioned by PCO. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[2]The complainant also alleges that PCO had improperly applied exemptions, so as to unjustifiably deny access to the requested records or portions thereof. That allegation is being investigated separately in file number 5822-05247.

Investigation

Reasonable search

[3]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.

[4]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.

[5]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?

[6]Documentation related to the search conducted demonstrated that PCO tasked two Offices of primary interest with searching for responsive records – Information Management Operations / Records Operations (RO) and Foreign Defence Policy (FDP).

[7]FDP had provided the 10-page report in response to being tasked in access request A-2012-00683. PCO explained that the report was not produced by FDP, but by a separate secretariat that no longer exists (the Afghanistan Task Force). All records originating from the Afghanistan Task Force would have been transferred to RO upon the decommissioning of the task force. PCO explained that while FDP had a copy of the report in 2013, it is not surprising that they no longer have the document, as records of business value of that age should have been transferred to RO.

[8]PCO informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that RO had conducted two searches for records. PCO indicated that the second search conducted by RO was conducted after the full scope of the request was noted. PCO provided a detailed search strategy regarding the initial search conducted but has not provided any details regarding the second search conducted by RO which resulted in additional records. As such, the details of this second search, including which information repositories were searched and the parameters of the search (e.g. keywords used) remain unclear.

[9]Institutions are expected to document the efforts they made to search for, identify, and retrieve responsive records. In this case, either such efforts were not sufficiently documented, or the documentation was not provided to the OIC.

[10]The onus is on institutions to provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. To date, PCO has not provided sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search.

[11]In light of the above, I conclude that PCO did not conduct a reasonable search for records.

Outcome

[12]The complaint is well founded.

Orders and recommendations

I order the Clerk of the Privy Council to do the following:

1. Conduct a new search for additional records that respond to the access request, in accordance with the points set out in the report.
2. Process all additional pages of records located as a result of the additional searches.
3. Provide a supplementary response to the access request no later than 36 business days following the date of the final report.
4. Give the complainant access to any additional 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 February 18, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Clerk of the Privy Council setting out my orders.

The Clerk did not respond to my Initial Report within the established deadline of March 20, 2026, advising of whether he would or would not comply with my order.

I remind the Clerk that if he does not plan to fully implement my orders, 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, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.