Standards Council of Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 58

Date: August 20, 2026
OIC file number: 5823-00120
Access request number: A-2022-001

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Standards Council of Canada (Standards Council) improperly withheld information under various sections of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all records related to the development of a national standard for service dogs. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a).

The complainant also alleged that the Standards Council had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided to no longer pursue their allegation related to the application of exemptions.

The Standards Council conducted a second search for records and retrieved approximately 15,000 pages. The Standards Council explained that these are untriaged documents and a manual comparison between these records and the records retrieved in response to the original tasking is required before they can determine if any new records were located.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the Standards Council process all additional records and provide a new response forthwith. The Commissioner recommended that the Standards Council of Canada ensure its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures and are instructed to carry out those responsibilities. The Standards Council gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order however it did not address the recommendation. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that the Standards Council of Canada (Standards Council), in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act:

• improperly withheld information under section 23 (solicitor-client privilege), subsections 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence), 19(1) (personal information) and 20(1) (third party information), and paragraphs 18(b) (competitive position of government), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) when it responded to the above-noted access request. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a).
• 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).

[2]This was in response to a request for all records related to the development of a national standard for service dogs.

[3]During the investigation, the complainant decided to no longer pursue their allegation related to the application of exemptions.

Investigation

Reasonable search

[4]The Standards Council was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request—that is, one or more experienced

[5]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.

[6]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.

[7]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?

[8]The complainant submitted that they did not receive any correspondence from Assistance Dogs International, the International Guide Dog Federation, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and a named individual who ought to have been involved in the discussions related to the development of service dog standards.

[9]During the course of the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) asked the Standards Council to provide details related to the search for responsive records, in particular regarding tasking and search methodology. The Standards Council responded that 6 Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) were tasked: Chief Executive Officer, Legal Counsel, Canadian Standards Development, International Standards Development, Accreditation Services Branch and Access to Information and Privacy. The Standards Council provided rationale for why each OPI was tasked and provided details regarding the search conducted, including information holdings searched and key words used.

[10]Based on the concerns raised by the complainant, the Standards Council initiated a second search for records to the 6 OPIs. As a result, the Standards Council has retrieved approximately 13,000 pages and expects to retrieve a further 2,000 pages based on OPI feedback. The Standards Council states that these are untriaged documents and a manual comparison between these records and the records retrieved in response to the original tasking is required before they can determine if any new records were located.

[11]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. The Executive Director should remind his public service officials that properly managing information related to key actions is essential to efficiently respond to access requests.

[12]The Standards Council did not provide a date by which it intends to issue the supplementary response; however, it did advise that the review and comparison of records is ongoing and will require a significant amount of time.

[13]Having reviewed the details of the search conducted, I find that the appropriate OPIs have now been tasked and that the parameters of the searches conducted were appropriate. I conclude that the Standards Council has now conducted a reasonable search for records.

Outcome

[14]The complaint is well founded as the Standards Council did not originally conduct a reasonable search.

Orders and recommendations

I order the Executive Director of the Standards Council of Canada to do the following:

1. Process all additional pages of records located as a result of the additional search.
2. Provide a supplementary response to the access request forthwith.
3. Give the complainant 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).

I recommend that the Executive Director of the Standards Council of Canada 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 July 8, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Executive Director setting out my orders and recommendation.

On August 6, 2026, the Chief Executive Officer gave me notice that Standards Council would be implementing the orders but did not address my 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.