The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

46 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jan 6, 20265825-01230Indexed Jun 30, 2026

5825-01230 — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Department of Justice and Public Services and Procurement Canada

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an unreasonable time extension under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act and improperly processed two requests as one. The request sought an updated Consultation Agreement between Canada and the MNA and related documents. The Information Commissioner found that CIRNAC's 180-day extension for volume and 90-day extension for consultations were unreasonable, particularly noting that a 90-day consultation period for 12 pages with the Department of Justice was not justified. Consequently, CIRNAC was deemed to have refused access. However, the Commissioner found it reasonable for CIRNAC to treat the request as a single one, given the way it was submitted. The complaint was deemed well-founded, and CIRNAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

5825-01230 — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Department of Justice and Public Services and Procurement Canada

Jan 6, 20265825-01230
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) took an unreasonable time extension under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act and improperly processed two requests as one. The request sought an updated Consultation Agreement between Canada and the MNA and related documents. The Information Commissioner found that CIRNAC's 180-day extension for volume and 90-day extension for consultations were unreasonable, particularly noting that a 90-day consultation period for 12 pages with the Department of Justice was not justified. Consequently, CIRNAC was deemed to have refused access. However, the Commissioner found it reasonable for CIRNAC to treat the request as a single one, given the way it was submitted. The complaint was deemed well-founded, and CIRNAC was ordered to provide a complete response within 36 business days.

Key Issues
  • Whether the 180-day extension under s.9(1)(a) ATIA for volume was reasonable
  • Whether the 90-day extension under s.9(1)(b) ATIA for consultations was reasonable
  • Whether the 30-day extension under s.9(1)(c) ATIA was reasonable
  • Whether CIRNAC improperly processed two requests as one
  • Whether CIRNAC was deemed to have refused access under s.10(3) ATIA