Decisions

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day period, as required by section 7. The request was for correspondence related to the hiring process by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Corporate Services at Canadian Forces Base Suffield for the position of General Safety Officer. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined DND 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 a lack of responsiveness from one office of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered DND to provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of 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 was unreasonable. The request was for all Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) records relating to project Anecdote. The complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC extended the time period by 23,725 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b).

LAC identified 780,000 pages of paper and microfilm records responsive to this request, that will have to be converted into an electronic format.

LAC did not demonstrate why the request would be processed by a single employee, nor why the tasks were calculated consecutively rather than concurrently.

Furthermore, not all of the records have been retrieved and analyzed yet, so LAC was not in a position to specify the exact number of records that would have to be sent for consultation.

LAC did not show that the extension of time is for a reasonable period, having regard to the circumstances. Therefore, the extension of time is invalid and LAC is deemed to have refused to give access to the requested records pursuant to subsection 10(3).

The complaint is well founded.