Interference with access to information : Ingérence dans l'accès à l'information

In addition to seeking representations on the findings set out in the preliminary report, the OIC also sought representations about the designation of requests as “high profile” or “interesting,” the internal processes put in place by PWGSC to address potential breaches of section 67.1 of the Act, the “zero-tolerance policy,” communications between access officials and members of the Minister’s Of [...] In the view of the Commissioner, these actions were inconsistent with the duty to assist, even when the response was provided to the requester prior to the expiry of the extended due date.7 The obligation to provide timely access is a key element of the duty to assist. [...] In order to resolve the complaint, the Commissioner made the following recommendations to the Minister responsible for PWGSC, who is the head of the institution for the purposes of the Act. [...] Accordingly, the Commissioner was unable to exercise the discretion given to her by subsection 63(2) of the Act, which refers explicitly to “directors, officers or employees of a government institution.” Thus, while there is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, some evidence of the commission of an offence, she was unable, at the time of the investigation, to disclose any information to the Attorn [...] In four of the files that were investigated, the ATIP Directorate released the information only after an issue with the Minister’s Office was resolved, even though the Notice of Release or Notice of Reply had already been signed and returned to the 5. Moreover, the OIC was advised that PWGSC’s zero-tolerance policy of responding to requests six working days after the date of the Notice of Release