Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)2024 OIC 07
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Public Health Agency of Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 07

Organization: Public Health Agency of CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for records related to social distancing guidance. PHAC claimed a 1,380-day extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, setting the response due date to February 11, 2027. The OIC investigated whether PHAC met the requirements for such an extension. PHAC demonstrated that its calculation was logical and supportable, and that processing the request in a shorter timeframe would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The OIC concluded that PHAC had met all the requirements of the Act for the extension. Consequently, the complaint was found to be not well founded, and the extension was deemed reasonable.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the 1,380-day extension of time claimed by PHAC under s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) was reasonable
  2. 2Whether PHAC's calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable
  3. 3Whether providing access within a materially lesser period would unreasonably interfere with PHAC's operations
  4. 4Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Extension of time: Extension upheld as reasonable
  • Timeliness of response: Complaint dismissed
Outcome

Complaint not well founded

Reasoning

The OIC found that PHAC met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, demonstrating that the extension was reasonable and necessary due to the volume of records and the need for consultations.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.9(1) ATIA
  • s.9(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.9(1)(b) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(c) 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