
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2020 OIC 1
The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limits. The request, submitted on July 3, 2018, had a due date of August 2, 2018. The RCMP was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act as it did not respond or take an extension. Despite multiple requests from the OIC for information regarding the delay and a proposed disclosure date, the RCMP provided no rationale for the delay, only citing high volume and resource pressures. The OIC found that the responsive records were not voluminous or complex and had been in the RCMP's possession since July 2018. An initial report with an intended order was sent to the Minister, but before the order could be issued, the RCMP released the records. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded, but no order was issued as the records were released.
- 1Whether the institution responded to the access request within the statutory time limits
- 2Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act
- 3Whether the institution provided adequate rationale for the delay in responding
- 4Whether the institution provided a reasonable disclosure date
- Timeliness / deemed refusal: Deemed refusal occurred
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded
- Order issuance: No order issued due to records release
Complaint well-founded — records released after intended order issued
The RCMP failed to respond to the access request within the statutory time limits and did not take an extension, leading to a deemed refusal. Despite the OIC's inquiries, the RCMP did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or a proposed disclosure date. The records were eventually released after the OIC issued an initial report with an intended order.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police released the requested records after the Office of the Information Commissioner issued an initial report with an intended order.
- s.10(3) ATIA
- s.37(1) ATIA
- s.36.1(4)(a) ATIA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable
Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.
Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).
Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.
Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.
Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.
Upgrade to Pro