Indigenous Services Canada was ordered to finish its response to a request about assistance for safe drinking water at Grassy Narrows after missing its extended deadline and failing to provide a reliable completion plan. The Information Commissioner of Canada’s July 31 report, Indigenous Services Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 56, required a complete written response within 75 business days of the report’s date.
The February 18, 2025 request sought transactions and communications concerning assistance to Grassy Narrows during what the requester described as a boil-water advisory lasting more than 25 years. The ruling concerns access to those records, not a determination of the community’s current drinking-water conditions.
The department took a 150-day extension on March 21, 2025, moving the response deadline to August 18. It did not answer by that date. Under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act, failure to respond within the applicable period constitutes a deemed refusal of access.
A narrower request still lacked a completion date
Three branches had supplied the access office with 17,608 electronic pages on April 2, 2025. The department attributed its processing backlog to the volume of records and ongoing litigation.
During the investigation, the requester and department worked to narrow the request. Discussions between January and March 2026 ultimately limited it to final versions of scientific analyses and sampling results. Contracting records could be pursued separately later.
The department estimated that narrowing would remove more than 10,000 pages and leave approximately 6,500 to process. Those were the department’s working estimates, not a finding that all the remaining pages had been reviewed or were ready for release.
Indigenous Services said it needed consultations with at least three third parties and said ongoing litigation made the consultation timetable uncertain. It nevertheless could not provide a date for completing the response. The commissioner requested a detailed work plan on April 7 and followed up between April and June, but received no additional representations establishing a completion schedule.
Consultations did not transfer responsibility
The commissioner emphasized that the institution receiving an access request remains responsible for providing a timely response. Consultations may be necessary, but they must be managed so that they do not create undue delay.
The report did not treat the volume of records or the existence of litigation as a substitute for compliance with the access deadline. By the end of the investigation, the department remained in a state of deemed refusal and the complaint was well founded.
The order required a complete written response within 75 business days. That is different from ordering unconditional disclosure of every page. A response may identify records withheld under applicable statutory provisions, and must properly explain any refusal or assertion that records do not exist.
Commitment to comply, not confirmed delivery
The commissioner sent an initial report on July 6. On July 21, the acting corporate secretary notified the commissioner that the department would implement the order. The final report records that commitment; it does not establish the subsequent delivery date, the amount of information released or the requester’s satisfaction with the response.
The 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 were filed. Whether a review was sought has not been independently confirmed here.
The case illustrates the distinction between processing a large request and meeting the legal obligation to answer it. Even after a requester reduces the scope substantially, an institution must organize its review and consultations around a workable completion plan rather than leave access open-ended.
