Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that Health Canada failed to respond to an access request for information about implantable medical devices within the statutory time limits. Health Canada initially claimed a 90-day time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the ATIA, but failed to respond by the extended due date, leading to a deemed refusal under subsection 10(3). The institution had consulted nine third parties, one of whom filed a judicial review application under section 44, which Health Canada argued prevented the release of any records. During the OIC's investigation, the third party withdrew its application. Health Canada then indicated that further consultations were needed due to intertwined information and the passage of time. The Information Commissioner found the complaint to be well founded and recommended that Health Canada provide a final response to the complainant by a specified date. The Minister of Health agreed to implement this recommendation.

• Whether Health Canada responded to the access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether Health Canada's time extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) was valid
• Whether Health Canada was in deemed refusal under subsection 10(3) of the ATIA
• Whether a third-party judicial review application under section 44 justified the delay in processing the entire request

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ceased an investigation into a complaint alleging that a federal institution failed to conduct a reasonable search for records created in the 1990s. The OIC invoked paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act, which permits ceasing an investigation if it is unnecessary, such as when the matter has already been investigated. The OIC had previously investigated and issued a final report on an identical complaint regarding the same institution and type of records. The complainant was given an opportunity to provide representations on why the investigation should continue but did not respond. As no new evidence was presented to differentiate this complaint from the prior one, the OIC concluded that continuing the investigation was unnecessary.

• Whether the investigation was unnecessary under paragraph 30(4)(b) of the Access to Information Act because the matter had already been the subject of an investigation or final report