Indigenous Services Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 68

Date:2024-09-06
OIC file number: 5823-02013
Access request number: A-2023-00044

Summary

The complainant alleged that the extension of time Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for permits, contracts, modifications, letters and violation notices sent to G&R Recyclage in Kanasatake, as well as internal correspondence about this company, since 2014. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

The investigation determined that ISC was processing over 17,000 pages of records responsive to this request and that some of these records would need to be sent to third parties for consultation. At the time the investigation took place, ISC had reviewed 9,000 pages.

The Information Commissioner ordered that ISC provide a complete response to the access request by December 12, 2024, and to issue any required notices to third parties no later than October 1, 2024.

ISC 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.

Complaint

[1]      The complainant alleged that the extension of time Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for permits, contracts, modifications, letters and violation notices sent to G&R Recyclage in Kanasatake, as well as internal correspondence about this company, since 2014.

[2]      The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

Investigation

Time limits for responding to access requests

[3]      Section 7 requires institutions to respond to access requests within 30 days unless they have transferred a request to another institution or validly extended the 30-day period for responding by meeting the requirements of section 9. When an institution does not respond to a request within the 30-day or extended period, it is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

[4]      Nevertheless, the institution is still required to provide a response to the access request.

What is a response?

[5]      The response must be in writing and indicate whether the institution is giving access to any or part of the requested records.

• When the response indicates that the institution has given access to the records or part of them, the institution must provide access to those records.
• When the response indicates that the institution has denied access to the records or part of them, the institution must explain that the records do not exist or that the institution has exempted them, or part of them, under a specific provision, which the institution must name.

[6]      In specific circumstances, the institution may refuse to confirm or deny in its response whether records exist under subsection 10(2).

Did the institution respond within the time limits?

[7]      ISC received the access request on May 24, 2023. On July 5, 2023, ISC extended the period it had to respond by 210 days under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (c), making the time limit to respond January 19, 2024.

[8]      ISC did not respond to the access request by that date. I conclude that ISC did not meet its obligation to respond to the request within the extended period. ISC is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

[9]      During the investigation, ISC said it would provide a complete response to the access request on December 12, 2024, explaining that the delay was a result of the number of records (over 17,000 pages) and their complexity. ISC provided the Office of the Information Commissioner with information to demonstrate that the review of 9,000 pages was completed at this point. In addition, ISC indicated that it is necessary to send documents to other institutions and third parties for consultation.

[10]    Considering the subject matter of the request, I am satisfied that consultations are necessary.

[11]    Sections 27 and 28 of the Act set out a legislated process for institutions to give third-parties the opportunity to provide representations as to why records should not be disclosed.

[12]    Considering the points above, I find that the suggested date of December 12, 2024 for a final response is reasonable. Further, in order to abide by the legislative timelines set out in sections 27 and 28, I find that ISC must issue any required notices to third parties no later than October 1, 2024.

Outcome

[13]    The complaint is well founded.

Order

I order the Minister of Indigenous Services to:

1. Issue any required notices pursuant to section 27 to third parties no later than October 1, 2024; and
2. Provide a complete response to the access request no later than December 12, 2024.

Initial report and notice from institution

On July 24, 2024, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my orders.

On August 21, 2024, the Minister gave me notice that she would be implementing my orders.

ISC confirmed that the request is being processed and any required notices pursuant to section 27 to third parties will be issued no later than October 1, 2024.

Furthermore, ISC confirmed a full response to the complainant will be provided by the December 12, 2024, due date, in accordance with the order.

Review by Federal Court

When an allegation in a complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Act, the complainant has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review. When the Information Commissioner makes an order(s), the institution also has the right to apply for a review. Whoever applies for a review must do so within 35 business days after the date of this report and serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by this deadline, this order takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.