Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. The request was for specific records related to a contract for decommissioning and demolition services at the Health Protection Building that was awarded to a subcontractor. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC did not acknowledge control over some of the requested records, however, the Information Commissioner found that the records, if they exist, were under PSPC’s control. Additionally, PSPC did not demonstrate that it had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

The Commissioner ordered that PSPC seek assistance and copies of records from a third party, provide a new response to the complainant and give the complainant access to any additional records it located. PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request is unreasonable. The request was for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records on Communist Party of Canada activity and activists in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, from 1970 to 1984.The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC claimed an extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for 80 days and 730 days under paragraph 9(1)(b). The Commissioner found the latter extension, which LAC took to consult the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 4,985 pages of records, to be unreasonable. LAC could not show it had made a serious effort to assess how long the extension should be, relying instead on CSIS’s estimate of two (2) years as the time it would need to review the records and provide its recommendations on disclosure.

The Commissioner also found that there has been a significant disclosure of Canadian intelligence surveillance of Communist activities and affiliations throughout the 1970s and that the records are now approximately 50 years old. This led the Commissioner to question, as she had in her 2022 report on her systemic investigation into LAC’s consultation practices and other matters, LAC’s position that it must consult institutions on all security and intelligence-related records—thus, jeopardizing LAC’s ability to provide timely access.

Since the Commissioner concluded that the 810-day extension of time was unreasonable, and because LAC had not responded to the access request by the time the 80-day extension expired, the Commissioner ordered that LAC provide a complete response to the request no later than 60 business days following the date of her final report.

She also recommended that LAC include in its next semi-annual report on its progress addressing issues raised in the systemic investigation specific updates on improved timelines for consultations with other institutions.

LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order but indicated that it would include an update on consultation timelines in its next progress report.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the extension of time the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for all records pertaining to the booking and subsequent cancellation of Professor Alice Sullivan's International Women's Day 2024 presentation to Department of Justice staff.

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

Justice claimed an extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for 292 days which the investigation determined to be unreasonable. Justice also claimed 90 days under paragraph 9(1)(b) but failed to respond within this time frame. As a result, Justice was deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The investigation also found that Justice based the time extension on a page count that did not truly reflect the number of records responsive to the request because it failed to properly identify duplicates and non relevant records.

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

Justice 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 the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request is unreasonable. The request is for RG146: Vol. 4050 1 01/05/70 04/28/72 Vol. 4050 2 04/29/72 07/15/84 Vol. 4050 3 07/16/84 11/13/84 Vol. 4051 1 05/19/60 07/31/68 Vol. 4051 2 08/01/68 01/31/71 Vol. 4051 3 02/01/71 05/25/73 Vol. 4051 4 05/26/73 11/03/82 Vol. 4052 5 11/04/82 07/15/84 Vol. 4052 6 07/16/84 11/15/84. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC claimed an extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(b) for 639 days to consult the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 974 pages of records. The Commissioner found the extension, on less than 1000 pages of records, to be unreasonable. LAC could not show it had made a serious effort to assess how long the extension should be, relying instead on CSIS’s estimate of 18 to 24 months as the time it would need to review the 974 pages of records and provide its recommendations on disclosure.

This led the Commissioner to question, as she had in her 2022 report on her systemic investigation into LAC’s consultation practices and other matters, LAC’s position that it must consult institutions on all security and intelligence-related records—thus, jeopardizing LAC’s ability to provide timely access.

Since the Commissioner concluded that the 639-day extension of time was unreasonable, the Commissioner ordered that LAC provide a complete response to the request no later than 60 business days following the date of her final report.

She also recommended that LAC include in its next semi-annual report on its progress addressing issues raised in the systemic investigation specific updates on improved timelines for consultations with other institutions.

LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order but indicated that it would include an update on consultation timelines in its next progress report.

The complaint is well founded.