Privy Council Office (Re), 2020 OIC 14
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 1962. PCO claimed an extension, partly for consultations, but then closed the file, citing its 'no late file' policy and the lack of recommendations from other government institutions. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that the Act does not permit an institution to cease processing a request due to outstanding consultations, concluding that PCO was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The Commissioner recommended PCO respond to the request by a specific date and revoke or revise its 'no late file' policy to comply with the Act. PCO committed to a revised response date and confirmed the revocation of its policy. The complaint was found to be well founded.
- 1Whether the institution responded to the access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
- 2Whether the institution was authorized to cease processing an access request due to outstanding recommendations from consulted institutions
- 3Whether the institution was in deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act
- Timeliness / deemed refusal: Deemed refusal found
- Institutional policy: 'No late file' policy to be revoked/revised
- Processing of request: Institution ordered to respond to request
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The institution was found to be in deemed refusal because 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.
The Information Commissioner recommended that the Clerk of the Privy Council take the necessary steps to respond to the access request by December 17, 2020, and revoke or revise its 'no late file' policy to ensure compliance 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