Decisions

The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (negotiations by government institutions), subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to the use of Indigenous languages in the proceedings of the House of Commons. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

PSPC showed that the per diem rates met all of the requirements of paragraph 18(b) but could not show that any of the other withheld information met the requirements of paragraphs 18(b) or 20(1)(d).

PSPC did not demonstrate that it considered all relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide to withhold the per diem rates.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PSPC disclose the information it withheld under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(d) other than the per diem rates and re-exercise its discretion to decide whether to withhold the per diem rates under paragraph 18(b).

PSPC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for all records related to providing guidance to the provinces on social distancing from January 1, 2020 to April 26, 2022. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

PHAC claimed a 1,380-day extension of time under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) to complete the processing of the request. If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be February 11, 2027.

During the investigation, PHAC showed that it met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), in particular that the calculation of the time extension was sufficiently logical and supportable, and that providing access to the records within any materially lesser period of time than the one asserted would unreasonably interfere with its operations and that the consultations could not reasonably be completed within 30 days.

The OIC concluded that PHAC showed that it met all the requirements of paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b). Therefore, the extension is reasonable and the due date to respond to the access request remains February 11, 2027. This being said, I invite the complainant and PHAC to collaborate to reduce the scope of the request so that fewer records will need to be processed and a response to the request could be released sooner.

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that National Defence (DND) did not respond to an access request submitted under the Access to Information Act within the 30-day or extended period, as required by section 7. The request was for the total number of requests received for accommodation and exemption from CAF COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined DND had missed the extended due date made under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act. DND 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 a lack of responsiveness from one office of primary interest.

The Information Commissioner ordered that DND complete the retrieval of all records responsive to the request, which would include tasking specified individuals and provide a response to the access request no later than the 36th business day following the date of the final report.

DND gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.