Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage (PCH) failed to conduct reasonable searches for records in response to thirteen access requests concerning lobbying communications from 2020 and 2021. While the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) that were tasked conducted adequate searches, the Information Commissioner found that PCH did not task all relevant OPIs that were likely to hold responsive records. Specifically, the Corporate Secretariat and the Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks OPI were not consistently tasked despite being identified as likely holders of records related to ministerial staff and specific employees, respectively. The Commissioner concluded that PCH did not conduct reasonable searches for records. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered PCH to task the appropriate OPIs, conduct new searches, and provide access to any additional responsive records.

• Whether Canadian Heritage conducted reasonable searches for records in response to multiple access requests
• Whether all Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) likely to hold relevant records were tasked with searching

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to respond to an access request within the extended timeframe, constituting a deemed refusal under the Access to Information Act. The request sought various records from September 1, 2022, onwards, concerning committee studies of foreign election interference. PCO had extended the response period by 330 days, making the deadline March 14, 2024, but failed to respond by this date. The investigation found that PCO did not meet its obligation, attributing the delay to a large volume of records (5,988 pages) and the ATIP office's failure to initiate timely consultations with eight other government departments. The Information Commissioner ordered PCO to provide a complete response by November 15, 2024. PCO subsequently notified the Commissioner that it would implement the order and respond by the specified date. The complaint was found to be well founded.

• Whether the institution responded within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution is deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to delay