Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 49
Date: 2024-08-01
OIC file number: 5823-02811
Access request number: A-2023-00180
Summary
The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for materials relating to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.
The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped the above-noted access request with other requests to take the extension of time. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).
During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was advised that approximately 2,404 pages of responsive records were received. The OIC noted that PSCP failed to demonstrate that it applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine the duration of the extension of time and to make 768 days reasonable and justified in the current circumstances.
Additionally, with regard to the allegation that PSPC improperly regrouped the access request with a related request to justify the time extension, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that PSPC would not have claimed the extension if it did not regroup the request. Therefore, the OIC concluded that the basis for the allegation under paragraph 30(1)(f) is not valid.
Considering these points, and how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, the Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.
PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.
The complaint is well founded.
Complaint
[1] The complainant alleged that the extension of time Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for materials relating to the sixth interprovincial crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.
[2] The complainant also alleged that PSPC improperly regrouped the above-noted access request with other requests to take the extension of time. This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).
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. PSPC received the access request on August 21, 2023 and extended the period within which it had to respond to the request by 768 days under paragraph 9(1)(a) and 300 additional days under paragraph 9(1)(b). If valid, the time limit for response would be August 24, 2026.
Extensions of time
Paragraph 9(1)(a): extension of time due to volume of records
[4] Paragraph 9(1)(a) allows institutions to extend the 30-day period for responding to an access request when they can show the following:
- the request is for a large number of records or requires searching through a large number of records;
- meeting the 30-day time limit would unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations; and
- the extension of time is for a reasonable period, having regard to the circumstances.
Did the institution show that it met the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a)?
Is the access request for a large number of records?
[5] In its representations, PSPC noted that approximately 2,404 pages of responsive records were gathered by the nine sectors of PSPC who were tasked. PSPC stated that the materials are complex and sensitive in nature, requiring analysis and review by an experienced senior analyst.
Would meeting the 30-day deadline unreasonably interfere with the institution’s operations?
[6] PSPC indicated that other requests of the same nature had been submitted by the same requester, and therefore considered the overlapping nature of the records, the length of time to produce and prepare the records for review, and the length of time required to analyze and apply exemptions to the two related access requests concurrently when determining the extension of time.
[7] Although the request is for a sizable volume of records, PSPC did not provide any evidence demonstrating why an additional 768 days would be required to process the request in order to avoid interference with its operations.
Is the extension for a reasonable period?
[8] PSCP failed to demonstrate that it applied sufficient rigour and logic as part of a serious effort to determine the duration of the extension of time and to make 768 days reasonable and justified in the current circumstances.
[9] Consequently, I conclude the 768-day time extension PSPC took does not meet the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a).
[10] As PSPC did not show that extension of time under paragraph 9(1)(a) was for a reasonable period, there is no need to examine whether the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(b) were met as the matter is moot.
Subsection 10(3): deemed refusal of access
[11] Under subsection 10(3), when institutions do not respond to an access request within 30 days or by the end of the period for which they validly extended the period they had to respond, they are deemed to have refused access to the requested records.
[12] PSPC indicated that while consultations are complete and the file is pending managerial review, the analyst is processing a related access request in tandem in order to address overlap and increase the efficiency for producing responses to both requests. PSPC has advised the OIC that they plan to provide a complete response to the requester by October 31, 2024.
[13] While I recognize that PSPC wishes to process the request in tandem, based on the work left to do on this file and the time that has elapsed since the request was received, I find that an additional four months to process 2,404 pages is unreasonable.
[14] Considering these points, and how long the response to the access request has been outstanding, I find that PSPC must issue the response without undue delay.
Paragraph 30(1)(f): Receipt and investigation of complaints
[15] Regarding the allegation that PSPC improperly regrouped the above-noted access request with other requests to take the extension of time, PSPC provided copies of correspondence between their analyst and the requester which indicated that the requester had been actively engaged in the regrouping process and was in agreement of said regrouping as it was understood that it would facilitate a more efficient means to respond to the access request. I agree that this appeared to be a reasonable course of action which would effectively minimize the amount of work to be done and duplication of effort. Additionally, there is no evidence to demonstrate that without amalgamating, PSPC would not have claimed the extension. I conclude, therefore, that the basis for the allegation under paragraph 30(1)(f) is not valid.
Outcome
[16] The complaint is well founded.
Order
I order the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a complete response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.
Initial report and notice from institution
On June 27, 2024, I issued my initial report to the Minister setting out my order.
On July 25, 2024, the Senior Director of Access, Privacy and Transparency gave me notice that PSPC would be implementing my 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.