
Decision under section 31, 2025 OIC 41
The complainant alleged that a federal institution failed to respond to an access request within the statutory 30-day period or an extended period, resulting in a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. The complainant submitted their complaint on January 21, 2025, arguing that the deemed refusal was 'ongoing' and therefore the 60-day time limit for complaints under section 31 should not apply from the initial awareness date. The OIC requested clarification on when the complainant first became aware of the institution's failure to respond, but the complainant maintained their 'ongoing refusal' position. The OIC determined that the complaint was inadmissible because it was not submitted within the mandatory 60-day time limit from when the complainant first became aware of the grounds for complaint. The Commissioner rejected the argument that an 'ongoing' deemed refusal continuously restarts the complaint period, citing Federal Court precedent and emphasizing that the Act does not grant the Commissioner power to extend this time limit.
- 1Whether the complaint was submitted within the 60-day time limit prescribed by section 31 of the Access to Information Act
- 2Whether an 'ongoing' deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the Act continuously restarts the 60-day complaint period under section 31
- 3Whether the Information Commissioner has the power to extend the 60-day time limit for submitting complaints
- Timeliness of complaint: Complaint inadmissible due to late filing
- Deemed refusal: Argument of 'ongoing' deemed refusal rejected
- Commissioner's jurisdiction: No power to extend complaint time limit
Complaint inadmissible
The complaint was inadmissible because it was not submitted within the mandatory 60-day time limit set out in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner found that the 'ongoing' nature of a deemed refusal does not negate the requirement to file a complaint within 60 days of first becoming aware of the institution's failure to respond within the statutory timelines.
- s.31 ATIA
- s.10(3) ATIA
- s.9(1)(c) 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