Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2025 OIC 22
Date: 2025-03-21
OIC file number: 5821-03623
Access request number: A-2021-00283
Summary
The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all the emails of a named employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. PSPC failed to demonstrate that the access request did not meet the requirements of section 6 and was not, therefore, a request. In particular, PSPC failed to show how an experienced institutional employee would be unable to locate with a reasonable effort the emails of a single employee, even though the complainant had not specified a subject matter and/or timeframe for the emails. The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC provide a complete response to the access request. The Commissioner also recommended, since there turned out to be 50,000 pages of emails, that PSPC ensure its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures. Doing so, would help PSPC improve its record classification, organization and retrieval processes, and, as result, respond more efficiently to requests. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and recommendation. The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1] The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) refused to process a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all the emails of an employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Investigation
Section 6: accepting access requests
[2] Institutions must accept an access request that meets all of the following requirements under section 6:
- It must be in writing.
- It must be made to the institution that has control of the requested records.
- It must provide enough detail that experienced institutional employees could identify relevant records with a reasonable effort.
[3] If the access request does not provide enough detail for experienced employees of the institution to identify records with a reasonable effort, the institution must promptly seek clarification from the requester, in keeping with its obligations under subsection 4(2.1).
[4] If the access request remains unclear after the institution has made every reasonable effort to seek clarification, the institution does not have to make further efforts to clarify the request and may choose not to accept it. When the requester provides enough detail, the institution must accept the request.
Was it reasonable for PSPC to refuse to process the request pursuant to section 6 of the Act?
[5] In the present case, it is clear that the access request was in writing and made to the institution with control of the requested records, thereby meeting the first two requirements of section 6.
[6] As for the third requirement of section 6, PSPC did not show that the request, as originally worded, failed to provide enough detail for experienced institutional employees to identify relevant records with a reasonable effort.
[7] While PSPC took issue with the fact that the requester did not specify a subject matter and / or timeframe for the requested emails, it did not explain how, in the absence of such additional information, responsive records could not be identified by experienced institutional employees with a reasonable effort.
[8] This situation, in my view, differs from the facts underlying the decision in Khoury v. Canada, 2022 FC 101, where the request was so generic that additional specification was required for responsive records to be retrieved. In the present instance, the complainant provided sufficiently specific information to retrieve the records sought.
[9] I conclude that it was not reasonable for PSPC to refuse the access request.
[10] Consequently, the legislated due date to respond to the request remained 30 days after the request was received (per section 7). PSPC did not respond by that date. PSPC is therefore deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
[11] Nevertheless, PSPC is still required to provide a response to the access request.
[12] PSPC, in responding to the OIC’s request for information on the processing of the access request, estimated that there is approximately 50,000 pages of responsive records. The discovery of 50,000 pages responsive to the request highlights significant deficiencies in information management, indicating a lack of effective classification, organization, and retrieval processes, which resulted in an overwhelming volume of potentially relevant documents. The Minister should remind his public service officials that properly managing information related to key actions is essential to efficiently respond to access requests.
[13] To date, some but not all of these records have been imported into PSPC’s Access to Information and Privacy software. Thereafter, it is expected that consultation with other departments will be needed, including consultations with National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. Such consultations are in addition to necessary consultation with third parties, as well as potentially PSPC’s legal services. In light of the foregoing, responding to the request will invariably take time.
[14] PSPC indicated that it would take up to five years to process the request and provide a final response. The complainant, in turn, indicated that they did not wish to specify or limit the scope of the access request and do not disagree with a five-year response time. The complainant, however, proposes that interim releases be made prior to that date.
[15] In the present instance, I find it reasonable for PSPC to provide a final response to the request as soon as possible, but by no later than July 9, 2029.
Outcome
[16] The complaint is well founded.
Orders and recommendations
I order the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request as soon as possible but no later than July 9, 2029.
I recommend that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services ensure its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures and are instructed to carry out those responsibilities.
Initial report and notice from institution
On February 18, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services setting out my order and recommendation.
On March 18, 2025, the Senior Director, Access to Information, Privacy and Governance gave me notice that he would be implementing the order and 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, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.