Privy Council Office (Re), 2020 OIC 11
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the statutory time limits. The request sought minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1957 to 1958. PCO claimed an extension, partly for consultations with other government institutions. When these consultations were not completed by the deadline, PCO closed the file, citing a "no late file" policy and the absence of recommendations from consulted institutions. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that the Access to Information Act does not permit an institution to close a file or fail to respond due to outstanding consultations. Consequently, PCO was deemed to be in refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner recommended that PCO respond to the request and revise its policy to comply with the Act. PCO did not implement the recommendations.
- 1Whether the institution responded to the access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
- 2Whether an institution can close an access request file due to outstanding consultations with other government institutions
- 3Whether the institution was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
- Timeliness / deemed refusal: Deemed refusal found due to file closure
- Institutional policy: PCO policy found non-compliant with Act
- Recommendations implementation: PCO did not implement recommendations
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Access to Information Act does not authorize an institution to fail to respond to an access request on the grounds that it has not received recommendations from consulted institutions. PCO's actions constituted a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act.
The Information Commissioner recommended that the Clerk of the Privy Council take the necessary steps to respond to the access request by October 31, 2020, and revoke or revise PCO’s current policy so that the processing of all requests aligns with its obligations under the Act.
- s.10(3) 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