Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 12

Date: 2026-02-02
OIC file number: 5824-03595
Access request number: A-2024-00306

Summary

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for documents relating to parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN. The timeframe of the request was March 12 to November 14, 2024. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that the extension of time PSPC took to respond to an access request does not meet the requirements of section 9. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(b) – in particular, the OIC found that relying primarily on service standards did not demonstrate a genuine assessment of the actual time required to process the request. As a result, the OIC determined that the extension was not reasonable.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than June 1, 2026. Additionally, it was recommended that the Minister issue interim releases for documents not requiring consultation and for which the review has been completed.

PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order and recommendation.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for documents relating to parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN, March 12 to November 14, 2024. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

[2]The complainant also alleges that the extension of time PSPC took to respond to an access request does not meet the requirements of section 9. This 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]PSPC received the access request on November 14, 2024. On December 16, 2024, PSPC extended the time it had to respond to the request by 600 days under paragraph 9(1)(a) and 150 days under paragraph 9(1)(b). The extension notice was issued on December 16, 2024, the first working day after the 30 calendar days had elapsed, which fell on Saturday December 14, 2024. If the extensions were valid, the time limit for response would be January 4, 2027.

Extensions of time

Paragraph 9(1)(a): extension of time due to volume of records

[5]Paragraph 9(1)(a) allows institutions to extend the 30-day period for responding to an access request when they can show the following:

the request is for a large number of records or requires searching through a large number of records;
meeting the 30-day time limit would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations; and
the extension of time is for a reasonable period, having regard to the circumstances.

Did the institution show that it met the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a)?

Was the access request for a large number of records?

[6]At the time the extension was granted, PSPC anticipated retrieving approximately 20,000 pages of responsive documents, based on information provided by their Department Oversight Branch (DOB). The DOB also estimated that it would take around 20 weeks to complete the records retrieval process.

[7]PSPC demonstrated that the request was for a large number of records and required a search through a large number of records.

Would meeting the 30-day deadline unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations?

[8]PSPC showed that searching for and processing this many records and responding to the access request within 30 days—assuming it were even possible—would have monopolized resources, including those of the program areas. Completing the necessary work would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations.

Is the extension for a reasonable period?

[9]PSPC indicated that it has received a high volume of requests concerning similar subject matter, and many of the associated documents will require legal review. To maintain consistency across these related requests, PSPC noted that cross-referencing will be necessary, which would require additional time for review.

[10]In light of the above, I find that the length of the extension taken by PSPC was reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, I conclude that the extension of time that PSPC took at the time the extension was granted under paragraph 9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period.

Paragraph 9(1)(b): extension of time for consultations

[11]Paragraph 9(1)(b) allows institutions to extend the 30-day period for responding to an access request when they can show the following:

they need to carry out consultations on the requested records;
those consultations cannot reasonably be completed within 30 days; and
the extension of time is for a reasonable period, having regard to the circumstances.

Did the institution show that it met the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(b)?

Were the consultations necessary?

[12]PSPC informed the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that consultations with several other government departments (OGDs) would be required in order to provide a complete and thorough response to the complainant. PSPC stated that it needs to consult the other government entities as the file is extremely sensitive, and the subject matter of the request may garner media attention. It was also noted that a number of the responsive documents are part of ongoing investigations, thereby creating further challenges in the consultation process, as many of the documents may need to be sent to more than one OGD involved in these investigations.

[13]In light of the above, the OIC is satisfied that consultations are necessary.

Could the consultations reasonably be completed within 30 days?

[14]PSPC informed the OIC that it was anticipated that the search would result in the retrieval of approximately 20,000 pages. Given the need to first retrieve records and prepare individualized consultation packages before waiting for a response, the OIC is satisfied that the required consultations could not reasonably be completed within the original 30-day period.

Is the time extension for a reasonable period?

[15]PSPC provided that the 150-day extension to complete the consultations was based on the initial evaluation time for the anticipated significant volume of responsive records. Although the number of records was greatly reduced once the documents were retrieved, PSPC explained that the consultation process timing would likely not be affected, given that the OGDs being consulted on similar requests have not been able to respond to the consultations within their standard range of service standards.

[16]While consultation with OGDs may be necessary, PSPC’s representations demonstrate that it used service standards to determine the length of extension necessary rather than conducting an analysis of the complexity and sensitivity of the records at issue. PSPC represented that they have encountered delays in receiving replies to consultations on similar files and intends to negotiate reasonable response times with the noted OGDs to ensure timely replies once the consultation packages are prepared.

[17]In simply giving consideration to service standards when determining the length of the extension necessary, PSPC did not demonstrate that it made a genuine attempt to assess the required duration of the time extension. Consequently, in this instance, I am of the view that taking 150 days to consult an unknown number of institutions (at least four institutions have been identified) on an unknown number of pages is not reasonable and undermines the spirit of the Act, which is to provide timely access to records.

[18]While I acknowledge that governmental department consultations may have been necessary, PSPC did not demonstrate how an extension of 150 days was justified under the circumstances.

[19]I conclude that the extension of time that PSPC took under paragraph 9(1)(b) was not for a reasonable period.

Subsection 10(3): deemed refusal of access

[20]Under subsection 10(3), when institutions do not respond to an access request within 30 days or by the end of the period for which they validly extended the time they had to respond, they are deemed to have refused access to the requested records.

[21]When an institution claims an extension under section 9, it bears the burden of justifying it. Given that PSPC did not establish that the extension of time taken was reasonable, I conclude that PSPC is deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3).

[22]During the investigation, PSPC represented that it had completed the retrieval process, and there were 6,724 pages of potentially responsive records to process.

[23]As of October 15, 2025, PSPC indicated that the consultation process with the identified OGDs had not yet commenced. While PSPC explained that it was aiming to initiate all consultations concurrently or within a close timeframe, it was noted that triage and review of the reduced set of 6,724 responsive pages must first be completed to prepare the consultation packages. PSPC had also not confirmed any third-party consultations and had stated that review and triage of duplicates and non-relevant records was yet to begin as of October 15, 2025. PSPC noted that it anticipated as many as hundreds of duplicates, and that the triage process could be very lengthy.

[24]In its investigations, the OIC has noted that information management deficiencies, mainly resulting from the duplication of records, copies and versions and emails being kept on more than one platform, make it hard to retrieve records and process requests. PSPC represented that it has been making efforts to shorten the processing time by re-indexing all the documents. It was also noted that the analyst currently working on the file is working diligently to speed up the processing of the file.

[25]PSPC further represented that there are similar cases in which the consultations with the OGDs have been ongoing for a number of months without any indication of when the consultations might be complete. PSPC stated that they plan to negotiate response times with the different institutions when the consultation packages are ready to be sent to ensure that the OGDs respond within a reasonable amount of time.

[26]While recognizing that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for an institution to consult, PSPC bears the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that the consultation process does not unduly delay access. Moreover, regardless of whether or not discretionary consultations are conducted, should PSPC decide to apply exceptions to the right of access, they should be limited and specific, as required by the Act.

[27]PSPC has stated that, considering the factors previously described, as well as the fact that the number of responsive pages has been greatly reduced, it is endeavoring to respond prior to the extended deadline of January 4, 2027.

[28]I do not consider this commitment to be reasonable. PSPC’s ATIP unit received all responsive records for this request by February 19, 2025. However, as of mid-October 2025, the review of these records had not yet commenced. PSPC has indicated that the review is expected to be completed by mid-2026. While they have cited factors such as the removal of duplicate records, limited resources, and anticipated delays in receiving consultation responses, 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.

[29]However, I recognize that time is needed to complete the review of records, send consultations, including third party consultations if necessary, and prepare a final response.

[30]The complainant stated that they are amenable to receiving interim responses, and I agree that documents not requiring consultation should be released as soon as possible.

[31]PSPC must respond to the request within the shortest amount of time possible. Any response must necessarily be compliant with PSPC’s other obligations under the Act, including the obligation to respond to the request accurately, completely and in a timely manner. Taking into account the work that remains outstanding, including the consultations, I conclude that PSPC must issue the response without undue delay, but by no later than June 1, 2026.

Outcome

[32]The complaint is well founded.

Order and recommendation

I order the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to:

provide a complete response to the access request no later than June 1, 2026.

I recommend the Minister:

issue interim releases for documents not requiring consultation and for which the review has been completed.

Initial report and notice from institution

On January 12, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order and recommendation.

On January 27, 2026, the Senior Director, Access to Information, Privacy and Governance, gave me notice that PSPC would be implementing my 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, this order takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.