Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2025 OIC 57

Date: 2025-11-25
OIC file number: 5822-05050
Access request number: A-2020-00607

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records in response to a request made under the Access to Information Act. The request sought all records concerning expenses incurred by the RCMP each year to provide security to internationally protected persons who visit Canada, including any available breakdown of these costs by visitor, from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. In response to the request, the RCMP provided a two-page summary of costs. The RCMP explained that the requested records were not identified and located because, in their view, it is highly likely that almost all the information would qualify for exemption or exclusion in accordance with the Act. The RCMP did not demonstrate that the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records. 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 conduct a reasonable search for records in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all records concerning expenses incurred by the RCMP each year to provide security to internationally protected persons who visit Canada, including any available breakdown of these costs by visitor. The request covered the period from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[2] The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) is separately investigating the complainant’s allegation that the RCMP improperly withheld information under subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Act (5822-05049) in response to the same request.

Investigation

[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. 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] The complainant sought records of expenses relating to dozens of individuals over many years, which in their view, would generate thousands of pages of records. Instead, in response to the access request, the RCMP provided a two-page summary of the records with annual totals of the expenses incurred by the RCMP while providing security to internationally protected persons from January 1, 2015, to January 24, 2020. The complainant is alleging that many records related to expenses are missing, such as communications and emails, reports, briefing notes and form letters that are used to request someone be designated for protective services.

[7] The OIC requested representations from the RCMP on the reasonableness of the search conducted to locate all responsive records. The RCMP advised that both Federal Policing and National Division were tasked to retrieve information in response to the access request because responsibility for this work shifted in mid-2017, initially falling under Federal Policing, and then being moved to National Division. I am satisfied that the RCMP tasked the offices of primary interest (OPIs) that were knowledgeable about the subject matter of the request and would reasonably be expected to hold responsive records.

[8] The RCMP has acknowledged that the OPIs did not retrieve the requested records in response to the access request and instead created a two-page summary of costs. The RCMP explained that the requested records were not identified and located because, in their view, it is highly likely that almost all the information would qualify for exemption or exclusion in accordance with the Act.

[9] In its representations, the RCMP advised the OIC that “While the request specifies ‘all records concerning expenses’, the document generated from the financial management system was able to show the list of people, and a total for each fiscal year which provides an overview of all the records requested.” In my view, this indicates how the records may have provided an overview of the records sought, but not how the two-page summary was responsive to a request for all records.

[10] Additionally, the RCMP stated that generating a summary using machine-readable records could be completed in a matter of minutes, where identifying, locating and reviewing the estimated 150,000 associated pages would be time-intensive for both the OPIs and RCMP’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office. The RCMP further iterated that the delay caused by reviewing the entirety of the records, due to their sensitivity, would have been likely to yield little, if any, additional records released to the complainant. The RCMP further noted its existing backlog of requests and acknowledged that delays had already occurred in responding to the request. The RCMP lastly stated that the ATIP Office had regularly dealt with similar requests in the past and, based on this experience, determined that the two-page summary met the requirements of the request and would do so without incurring additional delays.

[11] I do not agree with the RCMP’s position that the summary provided to the complainant met the requirements of the request, which sought all records concerning expenses. The RCMP asserted that because most responsive records would not have been releasable on security grounds, the full records did not need to have been identified and located, and a summary was responsive. However, in outlining the relevant categories of records, the RCMP did not demonstrate how entire record sets, such as those indicating the physical security measures in-place, would be withheld, to support its position. Instead, the RCMP emphasized that providing a summary was more expedient.

[12] While I accept that generating a summary using machine-readable records would save the RCMP time and resources, enabling it to respond in a timelier manner, the RCMP did not demonstrate that the summary fulfilled its responsibility to retrieve and process all responsive records.

[13] I conclude that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records when it responded to the request.

Outcome

[14] The complaint is well founded.

Order

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

1. Conduct a reasonable search for the records that respond to the access request;
2. Provide a new response to the complainant once the search is complete;
3. Give access to any responsive records that may be located by the RCMP’s searches, 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 provisions.

Initial report and notice from institution

On October 2, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order.

On October 31, 2025, the RCMP’s Director General of Access to Information and Privacy gave me notice that the RCMP would be implementing my order.

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.