One athlete’s name was too narrow a search for weightlifting records

Canadian Heritage was ordered to redo two searches for weightlifting records after using only one athlete’s name to answer requests that were not limited to that person.

The Information Commissioner of Canada found both complaints well founded in Canadian Heritage (Re), 2026 OIC 40, dated May 1, 2026, and Canadian Heritage (Re), 2026 OIC 44, dated May 11, 2026. Each report required a new search and response, with any lawful withholding explained.

The reports distinguish an inadequate search from proof that every document a requester expects must exist. In the later case, the commissioner accepted the department’s explanation for the absence of particular forms and appeal records, but still found its overall search too narrow.

Olympic-committee communications were missed

The May 1 report concerned communications between Canadian Olympic Committee staff and Sport Canada from July 1, 2024 to May 18, 2025 about weightlifting, Weightlifting Canada and weightlifting athletes.

Canadian Heritage said all of Sport Canada had been tasked to retrieve records and described searches of a SharePoint site and a shared network. The commissioner accepted that the appropriate office had been involved, but found that the department had not explained why those repositories were the best places to search.

Because the request included communications, the report questioned why Outlook had not also been searched for emails that might never have been saved to the corporate repositories. Using only one athlete’s name also risked overlooking exchanges about the sport, its governing body or other athletes.

The department explained that its annual funding-related communications with the Olympic committee fell outside the requested period and that a meeting within the period did not involve weightlifting communications from the committee. The requester, however, supplied evidence of September 25, 2024 emails discussing an upcoming meeting.

The commissioner found those emails responsive to the request and missing from the response package. The department’s explanations did not establish that its search had been reasonable. By April 29, Canadian Heritage said it had conducted a second search and would respond after reviewing two additional records.

A second report accepted some explanations but rejected the search

The May 11 report concerned Athlete Assistance Program confirmation letters, applications, nomination or non-renewal rationale forms and appeal records for weightlifting in 2023 and 2024. The requester stopped pursuing a separate challenge to personal-information redactions.

Canadian Heritage disclosed additional confirmation-letter information during the investigation, resolving part of the complaint. It explained that athlete nomination information had been supplied in formats other than the requested rationale forms and that it had already provided that alternative information.

It also said that the appeal identified by the requester had proceeded through another channel rather than the program’s appeals policy, and that the department was neither a participant nor privy to its details. The commissioner accepted those explanations for why the specific documents did not exist.

That did not resolve the broader search problem. Again, the department used only one athlete’s name even though the request was not confined to one athlete. The commissioner found the search likely too narrow to locate all responsive material, including records concerning other athletes or appeals.

New responses, not a ruling on athlete entitlements

Both reports applied the same practical test: knowledgeable, experienced employees must take reasonable steps to identify records where they are likely to be stored. Perfection is not required, and an institution need not prove with absolute certainty that no further records exist.

The orders required new searches and responses no later than 36 business days after the respective reports. Additional responsive records were to be provided unless a specific statutory exemption applied. If no additional records were found, the department had to explain how and where it searched and why none were identified.

Canadian Heritage said it would implement both sets of orders. The reports also provided 35 business days to seek Federal Court review and said the orders would take effect on the 36th business day if no application was filed. They do not establish that all ordered responses were later delivered.

Neither report decides an athlete’s funding entitlement, selection, appeal merits or the legality of the personal-information redactions abandoned in the later investigation. The common finding is narrower: a department cannot justify a broadly requested records search merely by searching for one person.