
5822-04510 — Public Safety Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada (Public Safety) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for correspondence between Public Safety and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Public Safety claimed a 240-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that Public Safety properly notified the complainant of the extension. However, Public Safety failed to demonstrate that the request involved a large number of records or that processing it within 30 days would unreasonably interfere with its operations, thus not meeting the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a). While Public Safety needed to consult with the RCMP, the Commissioner found the 180-day consultation period requested by the RCMP, based on service standards rather than complexity, to be unreasonable. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that Public Safety did not meet the requirements for a valid extension under either paragraph 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(b), rendering the extension invalid. Public Safety was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act.
- 1Whether the institution properly notified the complainant of the extension of time
- 2Whether the access request was for a large number of records under s.9(1)(a)
- 3Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations under s.9(1)(a)
- 4Whether the institution needed to carry out consultations on the requested records under s.9(1)(b)
- 5Whether the consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under s.9(1)(b)
- 6Whether the extension of time was for a reasonable period under s.9(1)(b)
- 7Whether the institution responded within the time limits
- Extension notification: Properly notified
- Extension grounds 9(1)(a): Not justified
- Extension grounds 9(1)(b): Not justified
- Timeliness / deemed refusal: Extension invalid, deemed refusal
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
Public Safety Canada failed to demonstrate that the extension of time was reasonable under either paragraph 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The institution could not justify the extension based on the volume of records or interference with operations, nor could it justify the length of the consultation period with the RCMP.
The Minister of Public Safety was ordered to provide a complete response to the access request on the 36th business day following the date of the final report.
- s.7 ATIA
- s.9(1) ATIA
- s.9(1)(a) ATIA
- s.9(1)(b) ATIA
- s.10(3) ATIA
- s.30(1)(c) ATIA
- s.36.1(1) ATIA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The OIC order issued after this final report — sets out the institution's compliance obligations.
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