Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2022 OIC 18

Date: 2022-03-10
OIC file numbers: 5820-01501, 5820-01503, 5820-01504, 5820-01505
Institution file numbers: A-2020-02610, A-2020-02612, A-2020-02613, A-2020-02614

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not respond to four access requests within the 30-day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

The investigations showed that the RCMP did not meet its obligation, in all four requests, to respond within the 30-day time limit. The RCMP could not demonstrate how the operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic justified the significant delays in obtaining responsive records from its Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs).

Given the 2020 systemic investigation and the public commitments that were made by the former Minister of Public Safety on behalf of the RCMP, the Information Commissioner was disappointed that some of the problems that were identified have yet to be addressed.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to prepare a final response to each of the four requests forthwith.

The RCMP gave notice that the complainant had agreed to consolidate all four requests into one (A-2020-02614) and that the RCMP would respond to this request by March 18, 2022.

All four complaints are well founded.

Complaints

[1]      The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not respond to four access requests within the 30-day time limit set out in section 7 of the Access to Information Act.

Investigations

Time limits for responding to access requests

[2]      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 time they have to respond by meeting the requirements of section 9. When an institution does not respond to a request by the 30-day or extended deadline, it is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

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

What is a response?

[4]      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.

[5]      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?

5820-01501 (A-2020-02610)

[6]      On April 6, 2020, the RCMP received a request for copies of Corporate Management and Comptrollership records about “depressed” real estate markets since March 1, 2019. The $5 processing fee was received on April 19, 2020. Based on the date of receipt, the statutory 30-day deadline for a timely response was May 19, 2020.

5820-01503 (A-2020-02612)

[7]      On April 6, 2020, the RCMP received an access request for copies of all requests made by the RCMP to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for depressed market status. The $5 processing fee was received on April 20, 2020. Based on the date of receipt, the statutory deadline for a timely response was May 20, 2020.

5820-01504 (A-2020-02613)

[8]      On April 6, 2020, the RCMP received an access request for materials referenced in the RCMP Commissioner’s January 2020 memorandum on depressed real estate markets. The $5 processing fee was received on April 20, 2020. Based on the date of receipt, the statutory deadline for a timely response was May 20, 2020.

5820-01505 (A-2020-02614)

[9]      On April 6, 2020, the RCMP received the access request for materials referenced in the Changes to Relocation notice posted to InfoWeb on March 15, 2017. The $5 processing fee was received on April 20, 2020. Based on the date of receipt, the statutory deadline for a timely response was May 20, 2020.

[10]    The RCMP did not issue a response by any of these dates. I conclude, therefore, that the RCMP did not meet its obligation to respond within the 30-day time limit. The RCMP is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).

[11]    During the investigation, the RCMP said:

• There have been significant delays in obtaining responsive records from the RCMP’s Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), namely the offices of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO).
• The access requests were temporarily placed on hold due to Covid-19 restrictions and operational constraints
• OPIs were unable to retrieve the related classified and/or physical records due to the RCMP’s work-from-home policy.
• The requested records may contain cabinet confidences, which will require further consultations with Legal Services.

[12]    It is clear that the delay in responding to each of these requests rests mainly with two specific OPIs, the offices of the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Human Resources Officer, who failed to provide records to RCMP’s Access to Information and Privacy office in a timely fashion.

[13]    While I understand the operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the fact that these requests have not been responded to for over a year after they were made is unacceptable. The ongoing delay is not consistent with the law, places the credibility of the access system in question, and fails to uphold the quasi-constitutional rights. Given my 2020 systemic investigation and the public commitments that were made by the former Minister of Public Safety on behalf of the RCMP, I am truly disappointed that some of the problems that I had identified have yet to be addressed.

[14]    Considering these points, and how long the response to the access requests have been outstanding, I find that the RCMP must issue a response to each of these four requests without undue delay.

Results

[15]    All four complaints are well founded.

Order

Under subsection 36.1(1) of the Act, I order the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to prepare a final response to each of the four requests forthwith.

On January 31, 2022, I issued an initial report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness setting out my intended order. On March 9, 2022, the Commissioner of the RCMP gave me notice that the complainant had agreed to consolidate all four requests into one (A-2020-02614) and that the RCMP would respond to this request by March 18, 2022.

Section 41 of the Act provides a right to any person who receives this report to apply to the Federal Court for a review. Complainants and institutions must apply for this review within 35 business days after the date of this report. The person who applies for a review must 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.