Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded

5823-02016 — Communications Security Establishment Canada and Privy Council Office and Canadian Security Intelligence Service and National Defence and Global Affairs Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency and Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Organization: Communications Security Establishment CanadaComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) failed to respond to an access request within the 30-day statutory period, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to specific files concerning the Intelligence Assessment Committee. The investigation confirmed that CSE did not respond by the due date, attributing the delay to untimely processing of records and delays in sending consultation packages to other government institutions. Despite receiving approximately 3,000 pages of responsive hardcopy records, CSE had not digitized them or initiated all necessary consultations. The Commissioner found the delay unacceptable and the proposed response date of January 24, 2025, unreasonable, especially given the historical nature of the request and prior disclosures. The complaint was found to be well founded, and CSE was ordered to provide a complete response within 72 business days. However, CSE notified the Commissioner that it would not implement the order and would seek a review by the Federal Court.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether Communications Security Establishment Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period as required by section 7 of the Access to Information Act
  2. 2Whether the institution's failure to respond by the due date constituted a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act
  3. 3Whether the institution's proposed response date of January 24, 2025, was reasonable
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • Timeliness / deemed refusal: Complaint upheld
  • Response deadline: Proposed date found unreasonable
  • Order implementation: Institution refused to implement order
Outcome

Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered, but institution will seek Federal Court review

Reasoning

The institution failed to respond to the access request within the statutory 30-day period and did not validly extend the timeline, leading to a deemed refusal. The Commissioner found the reasons for the delay and the proposed extended response date to be unacceptable and unreasonable.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

The Minister of National Defence was ordered to provide a complete response to the access request no later than 72 business days after the date of the final report.

Statutes considered
  • s.7 ATIA
  • s.9(1) ATIA
  • s.10(3) ATIA
  • s.30(1)(a) ATIA
  • s.41(2) ATIA
  • s.43 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