Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2025 OIC 48

Date: 2025-09-22
OIC file number: 5824-01567
Access request number: A-2023-07854/F337

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not search for the records requested and/or that additional records that are responsive to the above-noted access request must exist. The request sought all records on allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions in respect of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin by the Prime Minister and employees of the Prime Minister's Office. The allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. The investigation revealed that, although the RCMP tasked the offices of primary interest (OPIs) most likely to hold records, the OPIs failed to search for records up to and including July 5, 2023. The Information Commissioner also concluded that a 4600-page Police Reporting and Occurrence System file, deemed not relevant by the RCMP, was in fact relevant and ought to have been processed. The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to conduct a new search for records and provide a new response to the complainant. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP):

Did not search for the records requested and/or that additional records that are responsive to the above-noted access request must exist. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Improperly responded that some, or all of the records requested in the above-noted access request do not exist. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[2]The request sought “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 July 8, 2022, to July 5, 2023, respecting allegations of political interference with the Attorney General's functions in respect of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin by the Prime Minister and employees of the Prime Minister's Office.”

Investigation

Reasonable search

[3]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.

[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.

[6]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?

[7]In response to the access request, the RCMP stated that after a thorough search, it was not able to locate any records that respond to the request.

[8]The complainant alleged that the RCMP did not a conduct reasonable search, and that certain records were missing from the initial response. In support of their allegation, the complainant noted that, according to records received and published by Democracy Watch in response to a previous and similar request, a number of actions were taken during the timeframe of the current request.

[9]In its representations, the RCMP maintained that it conducted a reasonable search for records and explained that four offices of primary interest (OPIs) were tasked for records responsive to the request. The RCMP also confirmed that these 4 OPIs were the most likely to hold the relevant records.

Federal Policing (FP)

[10]According to the RCMP, members of FP searched shared drives R and S using the following search terms: “House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights”, “SNC Lavalin”, “Ethics Commissioner” and “Andrew Sheer” within the August 1, 2018 to November 24, 2022 timeframe. Members of FP also searched their personal emails and personal drives.

[11]While I accept that the search terms and repositories searched were reasonable based on the request text, I note that the timeframe for the request at issue is July 8, 2022 to July 5, 2023. As a result, it appears that the RCMP failed to task members of FP for any records dated between November 24, 2022 and July 5, 2023. Accordingly, the members of FP should be re-tasked.

O Division

[12]The RCMP explained that the O Division and the National Division have amalgamated and now have two separate Liaison Officers (LO) for Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) purposes. The LO responsible for records that are historically held by the O Division explained that the records would be with the Sensitive and International Investigations unit, which is historically under the National Division. The LO explained that its no records response was simply due to the fact that the tasking would be handled by the National Division LO.

National Division

[13]The National Division stated that all responsive records would be located in the Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) occurrence file 2019-287461 which was provided to the RCMP ATIP unit when the investigation into allegations of political interference with the Attorney General’s functions in respect of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin was completed on May 29, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the PROS Occurrence Report”). The PROS Occurrence Report and file consisted of 4600 pages. As a result, no other information holdings were searched.

[14]As noted above, the timeframe of this request extends to July 5, 2023. As a result, it appears that the National Division failed to search for any records that would have been created after the date of the PROS Occurrence Report, meaning between May 29, 2023 and July 5, 2023. Accordingly, the National Division should be re-tasked.

Commissioner’s Office

[15]According to the RCMP, the Commissioner’s Office searched the following repositories: CCM, GC Docs, Outlook (Commissioner Tasking, Executive Services, Commissioner’s Office, Commissioner’s email) and the Do Not Scan (paper files) binder up to 2023. The search words used were “SNC Lavalin” and “SNC Lavelin.” The Commissioner’s office then confirmed that the Sensitive and International Investigations unit would hold the responsive records.

[16]The Commissioner’s Office’s response is unclear in terms of the timeframe used to do its search. It stated that it searched up to 2023 however it is unclear if it searched up to and including 2023. The complainant provided representations that suggest that records ought to exist in the Commissioner’s Office:

RCMP Commissioner Duheme and Staff Sergeant Pincince appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee in October 2023 and February 2024 and confirmed that Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Mr. Scheer were notified in January 2023 about the conclusion of the investigation.
During his committee appearance, RCMP Commissioner Duheme recalled viewing reports and briefing the then-Commissioner Lucki regarding the investigation.
The government’s response to House of Commons Question on the Order Paper No. 1649 indicates that the then-Minister of Infrastructure had telephoned the RCMP’s Deputy Commissioner for Specialized Policing Services on June 19, 2023, to make enquiries about the investigation reports which were then appearing in the media based on Democracy Watch’s publication of its initial access to information response from the RCMP. If sufficient information existed to be able to include reference to this call in the response to the written question several months later, it stands to reason that records concerning the call also exist and would be responsive to this access request.

[17]Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Office should be re-tasked.

PROS Occurrence Report

[18]The records relating to the PROS Occurrence Report were retrieved during the original processing of the request, however they were deemed not relevant by the RCMP and therefore not provided to the complainant. In support of this decision, the RCMP stated that the file, the records and information contained within the 4600-page PROS Occurrence Report did not fall within the very specific timeframe provided in the request. The RCMP further stated that the PROS Occurrence Report includes an “occurrence time”. In this case, the occurrence time is September 4, 2018 to January 14, 2019. “. In the RCMP’s view, those are the important dates of the report and given that the occurrence time is outside of the timeframe of the request, it is not responsive to it. The RCMP added that the file remained open for administrative purposes and not for operational purposes and that no information was added to the PROS Occurrence Report within the requested timeframe.

[19]I do not agree with the RCMP’s position on the significance of the occurrence time in determining whether the report itself is relevant and responsive to the request. While I accept that the occurrence time is September 4, 2018, to January 14, 2019, I am of the view that these dates have no bearing on the relevancy of the report. It would seem that the occurrence time are the dates between which a criminal offence has allegedly occurred and is being investigated. This is supported by the fact that the “reported time” is noted as March 4, 2019, and that all actions reported in the PROS Occurrence Report occurred after the occurrence time.

[20]Regarding the RCMP’s assertion that the file remained open for administrative purposes and that no information was added to the PROS Occurrence Report within the requested timeframe, I also find this to be inaccurate.

[21]I note that the PROS Occurrence Report actually and specifically states that the following several “reported actions” occurred within the timeframe of the request.

[22]Although this information was shared by my office with the RCMP during the course of the OIC investigation, it was not addressed in by the RCMP in its representations.

[23]Given that the PROS Occurrence Report was not concluded until May 2023 and that several actions appear to have been added to the report within the timeframe noted in the request, I conclude that this PROS Occurrence Report is relevant to the current request and should be processed as a new response to the complainant.

[24]In light of the above, I conclude that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the access request.

Outcome

[25]The complaint is well founded.

Orders

I order the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to:

Conduct a new search for additional records that respond to the access request, in accordance with the timeframe and points set out in the report.
Provide a new response to the complainant, including but not limited to the records in the PROS Occurrence Report.
Give 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 August 1, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness setting out my orders.

On September 17, 2025, the Director General of the Access to Information and Privacy Branch gave me notice that he would be implementing the orders.

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.