ORDER PO-4696

Appeal PA25-00154

Ministry of Infrastructure

August 11, 2025

Summary: On June 24, 2024, a media appellant asked the Ministry of Infrastructure for records about the Ontario Science Centre. They appealed because the ministry did not issue a decision within the extended time limit. The decision-maker finds that the ministry has not issued a final decision, and the request is deemed to have been refused. The ministry is ordered to issue a final access decision by September 2, 2025.

Statutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 , as amended, sections 26 and 29.

OVERVIEW:

[1] On June 24, 2024, a member of the media (the appellant) asked the Ministry of Infrastructure (the ministry) for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to all emails sent from and received by the minister's office, the deputy ministers' office, and the Ontario Place redevelopment secretariat relating to the Ontario Science Centre for the time period of June 17, 2024 to June 21, 2024.

[2] On July 26, 2024, the ministry extended the time to respond to the request by an additional 60 days until September 23, 2024.

[3] On March 4, 2025, the appellant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) because the ministry failed to issue a decision by the extended due date. File PA25-00154 was opened.

[4] On June 4, 2025, the IPC asked the ministry whether a final decision had been issued and for a response by June 18, 2025.

[5] On June 18, 2025, the ministry advised that it had not yet issued a decision to the appellant and that it still needed a few months to complete the request.

[6] On June 18 and 19, 2025, the IPC asked for more details about the delay.

[7] On June 26, 2025, the ministry advised that it was taking longer than expected to respond to the request.

[8] On July 4, 2025, I decided to conduct an expedited inquiry and issued a Notice of Expedited Inquiry, encouraging the ministry to issue a final decision by July 18, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the ministry advised that a final decision would not be issued by this date.

[9] Considering the above, and to ensure there are no further delays in processing this access request, I will order the ministry to issue a final decision to the appellant.

DISCUSSION:

[10] Section 26 of the Act states:

Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 25, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 27, 28 and 57, within thirty days after the request is received,

(a) give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether or not access to the record or a part thereof will be given; and

(b) if access is to be given, give the person who made the request access to the record or part thereof, and where necessary for the purpose cause the record to be produced.

[11] The circumstances giving rise to a deemed refusal are set out in section 29(4) of the Act. This section states:

A head who fails to give notice required under section 26 or subsection 28(7) concerning a record shall be deemed to have given notice of refusal to give access to the record on the last day of the period during which notice should have been given

[12] Previous IPC orders have found that a decision to extend the time for responding to a request should be issued within the initial 30-day time limit for responding to a request.[1]

[13] Once a time extension has been issued, it is expected that, prior to the expiry of the extension, subject to sections 28 and 57 of the Act, written notice will be given to the requester as to whether access to the record or a part thereof will be given and for access to the record to then be given to the requester. This is referred to as a final access decision. If a final access decision is not issued prior to the expiry of the time extension, the institution would be in a “deemed refusal” pursuant to section 29(4) of the Act.

[14] Previous IPC orders have found that issuing a time extension once the 30-day time limit has expired does not cure a deemed refusal.[2]

[15] The appellant requested records on June 24, 2024. As a final access decision was not issued to the appellant by the extended due date[3] and no decision has been issued to date, the ministry is deemed to have refused the access request.

[16] Therefore, I find the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation under section 29(4) of the Act.

[17] To ensure that there are no further delays, I will order the ministry to issue a final access decision to the appellant.

ORDER:

1. I order the ministry to issue a final access decision to the appellant regarding access to the records in accordance with the Act, by September 2, 2025.

2. To verify compliance, the ministry shall provide me with a copy by email of the decision referred to in provision 1 by September 2, 2025.