Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada failed to justify an additional 390 days to answer a request concerning Microsoft Teams records, the federal information commissioner found.
In Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 29, a March 16, 2026 final report, the Information Commissioner of Canada invalidated the extension and ordered a complete response no later than 60 business days after the report. The department said it intended to comply.
The decision concerns the time allowed to process the request, not a determination that every Teams message must be disclosed without exemptions. The report does not establish what response was ultimately delivered.
Two extensions required two explanations
The request covered senior-level Teams messages, usage or retention policies, and activity reports. ISED received it on August 27, 2025 and provided an interim release of 19 pages concerning policies and usage information on September 29.
It claimed 240 additional days for the volume of records and interference with operations, plus 150 days for consultations. Together, those extensions moved its proposed response deadline to October 21, 2026.
Under the Access to Information Act, an extension must be reasonable and justified in the circumstances. The commissioner said the institution must seriously assess the time needed, connect its reasons to the length requested, and use a calculation that is rigorous, logical and supportable.
If the claimed extension is invalid, the ordinary 30-day response period remains applicable. The commissioner found that consequence applied here, placing ISED in a deemed refusal of access.
Senior review capacity was not adequately explained
ISED said the request involved 1,346 pages of Teams messages covering varied and sensitive senior-level subjects. It argued that the material required specialized review, could not simply be delegated to junior staff and competed with executives’ core responsibilities.
The department said an executive-level director could review approximately 250 pages in each 30-day period. The commissioner accepted that workload can affect an institution’s ability to respond, but found that ISED had not adequately explained how it reached that limit.
In those circumstances, eight months to review the records was excessive. The volume, complexity and competing-priority explanations did not establish the necessary link between the work and the 240 days claimed.
The consultation estimate failed separately. ISED said legal services needed 120 days to review possible Cabinet confidences and anticipated further consultations, but did not provide enough detail about other external consultations or the number of pages requiring them to justify 150 additional days.
A response deadline, not an unconditional release order
The investigation also found that review began only on January 5, 2026, about four months after receipt of the request. Asked for further processing information, ISED repeated its earlier explanations and proposed a somewhat earlier response than its extended deadline.
The commissioner rejected that timetable. Taking the outstanding work into account, she concluded that 60 business days was appropriate and that the work could not be completed in materially less time. The order required an accurate and complete response consistent with the department’s other statutory obligations.
Following the February 24 initial report, ISED’s access-to-information director said on March 11 that the department intended to comply. The final report allowed 35 business days for a Federal Court review application and provided that the order would take effect on the 36th business day if none was filed.
The ruling does not impose a universal pages-per-day processing rate. It requires institutions to substantiate their own estimates rather than rely on an unexplained capacity limit or a broad reference to consultations.
