Decisions

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 complainant also alleged that Transport Canada improperly handled the request before opening the file.

The request was for all correspondence, for a specified period, regarding the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), specifically related to four areas of interest.

The allegations fall under paragraphs 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(f) of the Act.

Transport Canada was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was in large part caused by the failure of the principal Office of Primary Interest to promptly initiate the search and retrieval of responsive records for the access request. This delay was exacerbated by a building fire more than six months later that further delayed the retrieval of paper records. Moreover, electronic records were not retrieved and processed while waiting for paper records to become available.

The investigation also found that Transport Canada had not improperly handled the request before opening the file.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada provide a complete response to the access request no later 120 business days following the date of the final report.

Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order and would instead provide an interim response within 120 days, however, no reasons were provided to explain why it would not be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for all records produced by and related to Privy Council Office access request A-2012-00683, as well as all records that relate to the commission of and development of a 10-page “Lessons Learned” document commissioned by the Privy Council Office. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The onus is on institutions to provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The Privy Council Office did not provide sufficient evidence to show that they conducted a reasonable search.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Privy Council Office to conduct a new search for records and to provide a supplementary response to the complainant no later than 36 business days after the final report.

The Privy Council Office did not provide notice advising whether it would or would not comply with the order.

The complaint is well founded.