Decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for records related to the creation of the position of Intelligence Coordinator and/or Security and Intelligence Coordinator in PCO between 1 September 1984 and 28 February 1985, including but not limited to the document 'Memorandum for the Intelligence Coordinator' signed by Cabinet Secretary Osbaldeston and dated 27 November 1984.

The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked to do so. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a subsequent search for all relevant records. As a result, 187 additional pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a subsequent response to the access request by December 10, 2024.

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

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for records related to the review of the Canadian intelligence program carried out by the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) for consideration by the Cabinet Committee for Security and Intelligence (CCSI), between January 1972 and June 1975.

The allegation falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigation determined that the Offices of Primary Interest did not retrieve all relevant records when they were tasked to do so. PCO was unable to show that it conducted a reasonable search for all of the records responsive to the access request. The Office of the Information Commissioner asked PCO to conduct a subsequent search for all relevant records. As a result, 265 additional pages of responsive records were identified.

The Information Commissioner ordered that PCO provide a subsequent response to the access request by March 18, 2025.

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

The complaint is well founded.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 597 access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the requests are an abuse of the right to make a request and vexatious.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that 550 of the 597 access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request. The circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on these access requests. She is not providing her approval for the 47 remaining access requests. The institution did not show they are vexatious or that they are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is partially granted.