Decisions

The complainant alleged that Health 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 internal and external records referenced in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Regulations Amending the Tobacco Products Regulations. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that 20,250 pages of responsive records were received. The OIC noted that information management deficiencies had resulted in a significant delay in the processing of the request. In addition, consultations within Health Canada, with other government departments, as well as with a number of third parties, would be required.

Heath Canada committed to responding to the request by July 17, 2030.

Considering the amount of time that had already passed without significant progress in processing this request and the overly long approval timeline, the proposed response date was found to be unreasonable. The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Health to provide a complete response to the access request no later than April 7, 2026.

Health Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act and did not conduct a reasonable search when responding to an access request. The request was for records related to the funding of a medical residency training program for a specified period. The allegations fall within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

DND conceded that it had not properly applied subsection 19(1) in all instances it was applied, and issued a supplementary disclosure. The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the remaining withheld information met the requirements of the exemption.

During the investigation, DND conducted additional searches and found additional records. The Information Commissioner concluded that DND did not conduct a reasonable search when it initially responded to the request. Also, the investigation determined that more records responsive to the request should have existed but, for various reasons, had not been retained by DND. The Information Commissioner further concluded that DND failed to pursue inquiries to ensure all responsive records were located at the time it processed the request.

The Commissioner recommended that DND ensure that its employees receive training and support on information management responsibilities and procedures, and are instructed to comply with those responsibilities. DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the recommendations and shared its plan to improve practices regarding records management.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) 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 records related to meetings and the lobbying efforts of the Pathways Alliance Inc., from January 14, 2023, to May 4, 2023. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that ECCC did not respond to the access request when the time extension expired. The delay was caused by a lack of responsiveness from two offices of primary interest (OPIs).

The Information Commissioner ordered that ECCC provide a response to the access request no later than August 7, 2024. She also recommended that the Minister of Environment develop proper processes and procedures to ensure that ECCC OPIs will abide by their responsibilities to provide responsive records in a timely fashion to ECCC’s ATIP Office and that he develop performance indicators to hold senior officials accountable for delays in providing responsive records to ECCC’s ATIP Office.

ECCC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and detailed the steps it is taking to implement the recommendations.

The complaint is well founded.