Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for the records contained in File 45731-2-2001 – ICSI Meetings 2001. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to initiate consultations and process the request in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and would respond to the access request within the ordered time frame.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada did not respond to an access request within the 30‑day period set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act. The request was for records from specific dates related to the operation and restrictions applied to determined aircraft, received and distributed by a specific employee. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Transport Canada did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the 30-day period.

The investigation revealed that the program area, Safety and Security, took three months to locate 148 pages of potentially responsive records.

The Information Commissioner ordered Transport Canada to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following receipt of the final report. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with the order. The Commissioner advised that, if the Minister does not intend to fully implement her order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review within the time limit set out by the Act.

The complaint is well founded.