Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request made under the Access to Information Act for all emails sent and received by a specified senior executive from January 1, 2019 to July 8, 2019. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. In addition, the complainant questioned whether the request was processed without regard to the identity of the person making the request.  This aspect of the complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(f) of the Act. Finally, the complainant further alleged that the CSPS intentionally deleted records despite knowing that there was an existing access request for those records.

This investigation revealed several issues with the processing of this request including, but not limited to: keeping the request on hold for months without lawful authority; failing to retain records responsive to an active access request; and an inadequate search for records as evidenced by the additional records that were ultimately found and sent to the complainant. The Information Commissioner concluded that the CSPS did not initially conduct a reasonable search in response to the access request. Also, while it is clear that the CSPS mishandled the processing of this request, the Commissioner did not find evidence related to the commission of an offense under the Act in the context of the investigation. Lastly, with regard to the allegation that the complainant’s identity was taken into consideration during the processing of the request, the Commissioner did not find evidence of this during the course of the investigation. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the length of the extension of time Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request was unreasonable. The request was for records produced on or after December 31, 2019, related to the updated version of the Weighing Evidence document available on the IRB’s website. The complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act. IRB claimed a 1,295-day extension of time pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a). If the extension were valid, the time limit for the response would be March 31, 2025. IRB could not show that it met all the requirements of paragraph 9(1)(a), 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. Given that IRB did not establish that the requested extension of time was reasonable, the extension is invalid, and IRB is deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3). The Information Commissioner ordered the Chairman of IRB to process all records within the scope of the request as soon as possible but no later than April 18, 2023. The Chairman of IRB gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing her order.

The complaint is well founded.