Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded

3218-00001 — National Defence

Organization: National DefenceComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limits. DND argued that the request did not meet the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act, which stipulates that a request must be for a record under the control of a government institution. The OIC investigated whether DND's decision not to process the request was justified. The Commissioner found that DND had made numerous attempts to clarify the request with the applicant, but the applicant did not provide the necessary clarification to enable DND to identify the records sought. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that DND was not obligated to process a request that did not adequately describe the records. The complaint was therefore deemed not well-founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the access request met the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act
  2. 2Whether National Defence was justified in not processing the request due to lack of clarity
  3. 3Whether National Defence failed to respond within the statutory time limits
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Timeliness / deemed refusal: Complaint dismissed due to invalid request
  • Validity of request: Request deemed invalid due to lack of clarity
  • Obligation to process: Institution not obligated to process unclear request
Outcome

Complaint not well-founded

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that National Defence made reasonable efforts to clarify the request, but the applicant failed to provide sufficient detail to identify the records sought, thus not meeting the requirements of section 6 of the Act.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.6 ATIA
  • s.10(3) ATIA

This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
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