Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 12
The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took an unreasonable extension of time under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to a request for documents related to parliamentary consideration of ArriveCAN. The OIC investigated two allegations: that the extension was unreasonable (s.30(1)(c)) and that it did not meet the requirements of section 9 (s.30(1)(a)). PSPC had extended the response time by 600 days under paragraph 9(1)(a) for volume of records and 150 days under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations. The OIC found that the extension under 9(1)(a) was reasonable due to the large volume of records and potential interference with operations. However, the OIC determined that the 150-day extension under 9(1)(b) was not reasonable because PSPC relied primarily on service standards rather than a genuine assessment of the actual time required for consultations. Consequently, the OIC concluded that PSPC was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) and ordered PSPC to provide a complete response by June 1, 2026, also recommending interim releases for non-consultation documents. PSPC agreed to implement the order and recommendation.
- 1Whether the extension of time taken under subsection 9(1) was unreasonable (s.30(1)(c))
- 2Whether the extension of time taken met the requirements of section 9 (s.30(1)(a))
- 3Whether the request was for a large number of records under paragraph 9(1)(a)
- 4Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations under paragraph 9(1)(a)
- 5Whether the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period
- 6Whether consultations were necessary under paragraph 9(1)(b)
- 7Whether consultations could reasonably be completed within 30 days under paragraph 9(1)(b)
- 8Whether the extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(b) was for a reasonable period
- 9Whether PSPC was deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3)
- Extension of time (volume): Extension upheld as reasonable
- Extension of time (consultation): Extension found unreasonable
- Deemed refusal: Deemed refusal found
- Response timeliness: Timely response ordered
- Interim releases: Interim releases recommended
Complaint well founded — disclosure ordered
The complaint was well founded because Public Services and Procurement Canada failed to demonstrate that the 150-day extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(b) for consultations was for a reasonable period, as it relied on service standards rather than a genuine assessment of the required duration.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is ordered to provide a complete response to the access request no later than June 1, 2026, and is recommended to issue interim releases for documents not requiring consultation and for which review has been completed.
- s.9(1) ATIA
- s.9(1)(a) ATIA
- s.9(1)(b) ATIA
- s.10(3) ATIA
- s.30(1)(a) ATIA
- s.30(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