Decisions

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Health Canada took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for information concerning an application for religious exemption to serve ayahuasca under the provisions of section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

Health Canada claimed a 1,000-day extension of time under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) to complete the processing of the request. If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be December 19, 2025.

During the investigation, Health Canada showed that it met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), in particular that the calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable, that providing access to the records within any materially lesser period of time than the one asserted would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and that the consultations could not reasonably be completed within 30 days.

Health Canada demonstrated that the extension was reasonable and the due date to respond to the access request remains December 19, 2025. The Information Commissioner invited the complainant and Health Canada to collaborate to reduce the scope of the request so that fewer records will need to be processed and a response to the request could be released sooner.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleges that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act. This was in response to a request for any assessments of cybersecurity and data breach risks associated with the ArriveCan application.

The complainant questioned the fact that they have received no information regarding specific named companies and/or expenses which they felt should have been found in the documents received, given the subject of their access request.

The OIC sought information from CBSA related to the program areas tasked to search for records and the parameters of the search. The OPI most likely to have records relevant to the access request under their control, searched for records in the appropriate repositories and provided these records to the Access to Information and Privacy unit for processing. As a result, the Information Commissioner concluded that CBSA conducted a reasonable search for records.

The complaint is not well founded.