Alberta energy ministry ordered to explain search for mining-company meeting records

Alberta’s Energy and Minerals department failed its duty to assist an access requester seeking records of three meetings involving Benga Mining Limited/Riversdale Resources, an information and privacy adjudicator found. In Order FOIP2026-30, dated October 8, 2026, adjudicator Pam Gill ordered the department to explain its search steps and why it believed the requested records did not exist.

Gill retained jurisdiction until satisfied that the department had met its obligations. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s ruling, case file 027641, did not conclude that records had been concealed or destroyed. It found that the department had left important questions about the scope, method and outcome of its searches unanswered.

An estimated 1,036 pages, but no new responsive records

The request concerned one meeting on May 21, 2019, and two on January 8, 2020. It listed potential record holders, search terms and numerous record types, including email, messaging-platform communications, calendar appointments and call logs.

After the initial request was treated as abandoned for lack of a response to a fee estimate, the requester resubmitted it in December 2021. The revised request excluded duplicates, repeated emails within longer chains, and records sent to or received by the requester. The department reused its earlier estimate of about 1,036 responsive pages and a $517.05 fee.

The requester paid a $258.53 deposit in January 2022. The department obtained extensions based on the volume of records, but in May said most of the pages did not concern the three meetings. Once the specified exclusions were applied, it said no responsive records remained. It refunded the deposit on May 26, 2022; that was a historical refund, not a new monetary award in the order.

A second search, recommended during the commissioner’s review process, also produced no responsive records. The department said it had sent the requester’s wording, keywords and specified platforms to seven business areas. The requester challenged both the search design and the lack of an explanation for the result.

Passing along the request did not explain the search

Applying section 10 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Gill explained that the department bore the burden of showing reasonable efforts to assist. That included conducting an adequate search and informing the requester what had been done. Earlier orders and a court decision supported requiring an explanation of search scope, record locations, personnel and the reasons for believing no further responsive records existed.

The department’s account did not show whether it searched generally for records about the meetings or confined itself to documents containing the suggested keywords. It did not explain how the terms were combined, whether a record had to contain some or all of them, or whether it used additional search criteria of its own.

Gill emphasized that a public body is best placed to identify useful search terms and criteria. A requester’s suggestions do not necessarily define the limits of responsive information. Repeating a search in the same way also would not necessarily produce a different result, and the department supplied no details of what it did differently on the second attempt.

The explanation had other gaps. The department did not say why the seven business areas were selected, why others were excluded, or whether all selected areas had fully responded. Gill also questioned the absence of calendar records, particularly for the meeting that fell within the requested date range.

Date ranges and keywords needed clarification

For the two January 8, 2020 meetings, the requested search periods began on February 1, after the meetings had occurred. Gill said that timing could have affected the results, but she could only speculate without an explanation from the department. It should have clarified the dates with the requester.

The department also needed to clarify whether the requester wanted records containing all the keywords, some of them, or simply records about the meetings regardless of terminology. Gill asked why such a large collection had initially been retrieved only to be treated as mostly irrelevant, and whether a narrow keyword-based interpretation might have missed other meeting records.

The order requires a fuller explanation addressing those issues, including any additional instructions to business units, whether they all responded, why calendar records were absent and what changed in the second search. The department must explain the steps taken to locate records and why it believes they do not exist.

Gill required written notice to her within 50 days after the department received the order confirming compliance. She retained jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of the department’s response. The ruling did not identify newly located records or establish that the required work had been completed.