An access request can fail even after a public body searches its records twice. The legal question is whether it searched properly and can explain what it did. In Alberta (Energy and Minerals) (Re), 2026 CanLII 110406 (AB OIPC), Alberta's information and privacy adjudicator found that the Ministry of Energy and Minerals hadn't discharged its duty to assist an applicant seeking government records about meetings connected to the Grassy Mountain coal project. The decision, issued October 8, 2026 as Order FOIP2026-30, is about the adequacy and explanation of the search. It doesn't establish that undisclosed records exist.
The applicant sought records relating to meetings on May 21, 2019 and January 8, 2020 involving ministry officials and representatives of Benga Mining or Riversdale Resources. The request identified numerous possible record holders, communication platforms and search terms. That made it broad, but the central subject was identifiable. The ministry initially calculated a fee on an estimated 1,036 pages. After further processing, it said most of those records didn't concern the specified meetings and the remaining material was duplicative or had already been supplied. It returned the applicant's deposit. A later search also produced no responsive records.
The applicant challenged whether those searches had been adequate. Under section 10(1) of Alberta's former Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a public body had to make every reasonable effort to assist and respond openly, accurately and completely. The adjudicator drew on earlier commissioner orders and University of Alberta v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABQB 89, in recognizing an informational component to that duty. A public body is usually best placed to say who searched, which systems and record repositories were checked, how search terms were applied and why it believes that no further records exist. A conclusory statement that nothing was found may not be enough.
The weakness began with the interpretation of the request. The applicant had proposed many search terms, but the ministry didn't explain whether it treated those as examples or as conditions that every responsive document had to satisfy. It didn't say how it used Boolean operators or whether it searched more broadly for records of the meetings themselves. Some date ranges supplied for January 2020 meetings began in February, after the meetings had taken place. The adjudicator said those ambiguities warranted clarification with the applicant rather than an unexplained narrow interpretation.
There were gaps in the search evidence too. The ministry had sent the request to 7 business areas, but hadn't adequately explained why those units were selected, whether they all responded or how they searched. The adjudicator questioned why there appeared to be no calendar entries for the meetings, how more than 1,000 initially identified pages had become unresponsive and whether the second search involved anything different from the first. Simply running the same search again wouldn't resolve problems with its design. These were reasons to require a better account of the process, not findings that a particular official had destroyed, concealed or improperly withheld records.
The adjudicator concluded that the ministry hadn't complied with section 10. Exercising her authority under section 72, she ordered a thorough explanation of the steps taken, the way the request was understood, the search terms and repositories used, the participation of the business areas and the absence of expected records. She retained jurisdiction to assess the ministry's response and ordered written notice of compliance within 50 days after it received the order. No immediate production of specified records was ordered because the proceeding hadn't established what records, if any, remained to be located or disclosed.
For government departments, municipalities, school divisions and other public bodies, the ruling is a practical reminder that search documentation is part of a lawful access response. The decision doesn't require a perfect search or proof that no conceivable document exists. It requires reasonable steps, clarification when the applicant's words permit different interpretations and enough detail to permit meaningful review. The case arose under Alberta's former FOIP Act and an access request processed before the province's newer access legislation came into force. Its precise statutory holding should be understood in that setting, even though the broader problem of opaque records searches remains relevant to administrators under later regimes.
Source
Complete original decision, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, Order FOIP2026-30, October 8, 2026, case file 027641, adjudicator Pam Gill. All 13 official pages and paragraphs 1 to 47 reviewed, particularly the duty to assist framework at paragraphs 15 to 24, search concerns at paragraphs 25 to 40 and the order at paragraphs 41 to 47.