Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2022 OIC 55
Date: 2022-12-28
OIC file number: 5821-02721
Institution file number: A-2020-06171
Summary
The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request for the total amount paid annually by the RCMP as a result of sexual harassment/assault from 2009 to 2020. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The investigation revealed that, to maintain confidentiality, the RCMP could not search its general ledger to identify which claims related to sexual harassment/assault. The RCMP also did not maintain a comprehensive list of all settlement payments made as a result of sexual harassment/assault that could be used to search the general ledger for additional responsive information. The RCMP could only reasonably compile and disclose information related to publicly known class action settlements. The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the RCMP conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request. The complaint is not well founded.
Complaint
[1] The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request for the total amount paid annually by the RCMP as a result of sexual harassment/assault from 2009 to 2020. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Investigation
[2] The RCMP 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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?
[5] In response to the request, the RCMP disclosed information related to the total amounts paid annually as a result of sexual harassment/assault for two publicly-known class action settlements (Merlo/Davidson and Tiller). The RCMP also explained why more responsive information could not be identified. According to the RCMP, for confidentiality reasons, its general ledger does not record the nature of settlement claims payments, and so publicly known class action settlements were the only payments that it could confirm were related to sexual harassment/assault.
[6] Based on the representations provided by the RCMP, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) determined that the requested information per payment would be stored in the Chief Financial Officer’s general ledger. However, due to the sensitive nature of settlement claims payments, this ledger was designed to protect personal and solicitor/client information. As such, it does not capture information at the level of detail necessary to identify whether a payment was made as a result of sexual harassment/assault. The ledger only records whether settlement payments were made to RCMP employees or the public. As a result, the RCMP could not search the ledger to identify which claims related to sexual harassment/assault and could only reasonably compile information related to publicly known class action settlements. According to the RCMP, its administrative records are maintained and searched by file number or by the full name and date of birth of the individual involved, and not by the type of offence.
[7] The OIC further determined that the RCMP did not maintain a comprehensive list of all settlement payments made as a result of sexual harassment/assault that could be used to search the general ledger for additional responsive information. According to the RCMP, to generate such a list would require an unreasonably extensive review of thousands of files held by its Departmental Legal Services Unit to determine the nature of each claim, if there was a settlement payment, and for what amount. As a result, the RCMP disclosed the only information that it could reasonably compile.
[8] In light of the above, the OIC is satisfied that the RCMP conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the access request.
Result
[9] The complaint is not well founded.
When a complaint falls within the scope of 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. The complainant must apply for this review within 35 business days after the date of this report and must serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43.