Public Health Agency of Canada (Re), 2022 OIC 26
The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for all correspondence, including emails, MS Teams messages, texts, and phone messages, sent and received by Iain Stewart between June 14 and June 21, 2021. PHAC notified the complainant of a 1,950-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that PHAC demonstrated the request involved a large volume of records (30,000 pages) and that meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with its operations, particularly given its role in the COVID-19 pandemic response and increased ATIP workload. The Commissioner also found that consultations were necessary and could not be completed within 30 days. Despite the lengthy extension, the Commissioner concluded that PHAC's calculation was reasonable given the circumstances, including the complexity of the records and the institution's processing capacity. Therefore, the complaint was not well founded.
- 1Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(a) was unreasonable
- 2Whether the request was for a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records
- 3Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations
- 4Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances
- 5Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(b) was unreasonable
- 6Whether the institution needed to carry out consultations on the requested records
- 7Whether the consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days
- 8Whether the extension of time under s.9(1)(b) was for a reasonable period, given the circumstances
- 9Whether the time extension was validly claimed
- Extension of time (volume): Extension upheld due to large volume of records
- Extension of time (interference): Extension upheld due to interference with operations
- Extension of time (consultations): Extension upheld due to necessary consultations
- Extension calculation: Extension calculation deemed reasonable
- Timeliness complaint: Complaint not well founded
Complaint not well founded
The Commissioner found that PHAC provided sufficient evidence to justify the time extensions under both paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Act. The institution demonstrated that the request involved a large volume of complex records, that processing within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with its operations, and that necessary consultations could not be completed within the initial timeframe. The Commissioner was satisfied that the duration of the extensions was reasonable given the circumstances, including the institution's increased workload due to the pandemic.
- s.9(1)(a) ATIA
- s.9(1)(b) ATIA
- s.4(2.1) ATIA
- s.6 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