Privy Council Office (Re), 2020 OIC 12
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request for minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1971 within the time limits stipulated by the Access to Information Act. PCO had claimed an extension, partly for consultations with other government institutions. When these consultations were not completed by the deadline, PCO informed the complainant it would not process the request, citing its 'no late file' policy. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that the Act does not permit an institution to cease processing a request due to outstanding consultations. Consequently, PCO was deemed to have refused the request 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 agreed to implement both recommendations, and the complaint was found to be well founded.
- 1Whether the institution failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
- 2Whether the institution's 'no late file' policy, which led to closing a file due to outstanding consultations, is compliant with the Act
- 3Whether the institution was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
- Timeliness / deemed refusal: Deemed refusal upheld
- Processing of request: Cessation of processing found improper
- Institutional policy: Policy revision recommended and accepted
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well founded
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The Access to Information Act does not authorize an institution to cease processing an access request on the grounds that it has not yet 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 and revoke or revise its current policy to ensure compliance with 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