Decisions

The complainant alleged that Canada Post failed to conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act for records containing the complainant’s name. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that Canada Post had not demonstrated that all relevant Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) had been tasked with retrieving records and that the OPIs tasked with retrieving records produced all relevant records under the OPI’s control. Canada Post did not provide sufficient explanation for the lack of certain records identified by the complainant that were not retrieved but would have been responsive to the access request.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Canada Post determine whether additional responsive records exist, and if so, process those relevant records and provide a final response to the complainant.

Canada Post gave notice that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information) and paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third‐party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for medical certificates provided by Marineland for the export of five beluga whales. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of subsection 19(1) to withhold the records at issue was removed from the scope of the complaint.

DFO and the third party did not show that the information met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), in particular, that the information was confidential or that the third party consistently treated the information as confidential.

The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to disclose the record in its entirety, other than information withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1). DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The access request was for any records relating to any and all access to information requests received by LAC regarding Project Anecdote. The complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.

LAC claimed a 1,095-day extension of time under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) to complete the processing of the request. If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be June 20, 2025.

During the investigation, LAC 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, or 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 Office of the Information Commissioner concludes that LAC showed that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a) and (b). Therefore, the extension is valid and the due date to respond to the access request remains June 20, 2025.

The complaint is not well founded.