The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office’s (PCO’s) record-keeping practices as they pertain to appointment processes are not in compliance with the Access to Information Act.

The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f). 

PCO explained that appointment selection members may take notes during the interview process to support them during the deliberation stage. The conclusions of the deliberations between members are transcribed into a final advice letter. In terms of PCO’s record-keeping obligations within the organization and under the law, the final advice letter to the Minister is the document that constitutes the official record of the deliberations. PCO confirmed that all other documents, including handwritten notes, are considered transitory and disposed of after appointments.

The complainant also claimed that PCO’s record keeping practices give rise to a potential offence under the Act. The investigation determined that that there was no evidence of records having been destroyed with “the intent to deny a right of access”. Instead, the evidence supported a finding that the interview notes were transitory records used in the preparation of the advice letters to the then-Minister. The investigation also observed that the right of access is contingent on institutions’ proper documentation and retention of records. The Information Commissioner previously recommended the creation of a statutory duty for public servants and senior officials to properly document key actions while noting that transitory records would not need to be retained in order to safeguard accountability and transparency of government.

The complaint is not well founded.