Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request seeking records relating to the RCMP’s “E Norther” file.

The request identified the RCMP’s Legal Services Unit as potentially having records but the RCMP initially refused to task this area stating that responsive records would not be under its control. The investigation found that the records, if they existed, would likely be under the RCMP’s control for the purposes of the Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to confirm if additional records existed and, if so, to process these records in accordance with the Act.The RCMP gave notice to the Information Commissioner that records had been identified and that an additional response was sent to the complainant.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not respond to an access request by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all documents regarding the Copyright Media Clearance Program for the period January 1, 2018 to June 12, 2019. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act. PSPC had not responded to the access request when the extension of time expired on September 4, 2020. The issue of whether the extension of time was reasonable is moot.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a final response to the access request within 10 days after the day on which the order takes effect under paragraph 36.1(4)

PSPC gave notice that it would not be fully implementing the order.

The complainant alleged that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) had failed to perform a reasonable search for records in response to a request made under the Access to Information Act for all final decisions rendered pursuant to section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) from January 2018 until June 2020. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.

During the investigation, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) learned that the IRB tasked the appropriate program areas with the retrieval of the requested records but the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office had informed the Office of the Primary Interest (OPI) that only written decisions were being sought. This instruction ultimately reduced the scope of the request without the complainant’s approval. Despite the IRB’s justifications that audio recordings are only provided when specifically requested, the issue remained that audio recordings of final decisions fall within the scope of “all final decisions” and under the Act, a record means any documentary material, regardless of medium or form.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the IRB process all audio recordings within the scope of the request forthwith.

The IRB gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.