Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage (PCH) had not conducted reasonable searches for records in response to multiple access request under the Access to Information Act. The requests were all made in 2023 for records related to specific registered lobbying communications that took place in 2020 and 2021. The allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner found that, although the Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) tasked with searching for records fulfilled their obligations under the Act, PCH has not demonstrated that it has tasked all of the OPIs most likely to hold records relevant to each of these access requests.

The Information Commissioner ordered PCH to: task the relevant OPIs, conduct a new search for records, give access to any additional responsive records and provide a new response to the complainant for each access request.

PCH gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement all thirteen of the orders.

The complaints are well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not respond within the extended period under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to an access request. The request was for documents, memoranda, e-mails, correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, messages on Microsoft Teams or any other messaging platform, and any other records, including drafts, from September 1, 2022, to the present, respecting committee studies of foreign election interference. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that PCO did not respond by the required date and is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3). The delay was caused by the large volume of records and the failure of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office to initiate consultations in a timely manner.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a complete response to the access request by November 15, 2024.

PCO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order and would respond to the access request by the ordered due date.

The complaint is well founded.