Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Biogénie Canada Inc. filed a judicial review challenging the unreasonable extension of time granted by the CFIA to respond to an access to information request submitted in November 2023

• The CFIA initially gave itself until November 2032 (approximately 8.5 years) to respond, while the Information Commissioner reduced the deadline to January 2028 — both extensions were found unjustified

• Of the 68,000 pages initially imported by the CFIA, only approximately 3,700 proved relevant after removing duplicates and irrelevant documents, dramatically undermining the basis for the lengthy extensions

• Insufficient and inconsistent evidence from the CFIA regarding processing rates — ranging from 1,000 to 26,700 pages per month — left the Court unable to rely on the federal institution's calculations

• Resource allocation was deemed incomprehensible, as only 1.3% of available processing hours were devoted to the CFIA's largest access request, which represented one-third of its annual page volume

• The Court conducted a de novo review under section 44.1 of the Access to Information Act, requiring the CFIA to disclose all responsive documents by September 30, 2026

Background of the dispute

Biogénie Canada Inc. is a company operating in the environmental services sector, specializing in the treatment and composting of organic matter from municipal curbside recycling programs. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing laws related to the inspection of food, animals, and plants. In 2021 and 2023, the CFIA administratively seized several lots of Biogénie potting soil under the Fertilizers Act, leading Biogénie to file two applications for judicial review of those seizures. In parallel with this ongoing litigation, Biogénie submitted a three-part access to information request to the CFIA on November 21, 2023 (bearing number A-2023-00159), seeking internal communications connected to the retention notices at issue.

The access request and escalating page counts

While the CFIA responded to the first and third parts of the request, the second part — requesting all internal communications related to three specific retention notices — remained in dispute. In December 2023, the CFIA initially estimated 18,000 pages were involved. By April 2024, that figure ballooned to 51,747 pages, and ultimately 67,827 pages were imported from the CFIA's three branches. However, the CFIA's own duplicate-removal software malfunctioned, forcing manual processing and inflating page counts. Through successive rounds of review, approximately 47% of pages turned out to be duplicates and 44% were irrelevant, leaving only about 10,000 pages after the first processing stage and an estimated 3,700 truly relevant pages after the second stage.

The CFIA's extension and the commissioner's intervention

On April 19, 2024, the CFIA invoked paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act and extended its response deadline by 3,105 days — to November 10, 2032 — based on a processing rate of 500 pages per month (later corrected to 750). Biogénie filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner in May 2024, arguing the extension was unreasonable. In February 2025, the Commissioner issued her report, finding the CFIA's extension unjustified but ordering a revised deadline of January 18, 2028, based on a rate of 1,000 pages per month and a 180-day Department of Justice consultation period.

The court's de novo analysis

The Federal Court, presided by Judge Gascon, conducted a de novo review under section 44.1 of the Access to Information Act, meaning it assessed the matter afresh rather than reviewing the reasonableness of previous decisions. The Court reformulated the issues as: (1) whether an extension under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and/or 9(1)(b) was justified, and (2) what the appropriate extension should be. While the Court accepted that the volume of documents, the scope of the work, the complexity arising from solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and the need for Department of Justice consultations all justified departing from the statutory 30-day response period, it found that neither the CFIA's nor the Commissioner's extensions were supported by sufficiently rigorous, logical, and sustainable calculations as required by the Federal Court of Appeal's National Defence 2015 decision.

Deficiencies in the CFIA's evidence and resource allocation

The Court was deeply skeptical of the CFIA's evidence on processing rates, which varied wildly from 1,000 to 26,700 pages per month. The blanket average of 1,000 pages per month failed to distinguish between the faster Phase I work (removing duplicates) and the slower Phase II analysis (applying disclosure exemptions). Perhaps most critically, despite characterizing Biogénie's request as "exceptionally broad" and representing one-third of the Bureau's annual page volume, the CFIA allocated only 6.75 hours per week — a mere 1.3% of available processing capacity — to the file. The Court called this allocation "incomprehensible, unreasonable and completely illogical," emphasizing that proportionality between resources and the scope of a request is essential.

Ruling and outcome

Biogénie's application for judicial review was granted in part. The Court set aside the Commissioner's order and determined that a six-month extension from the date of judgment was reasonable and sufficient, ordering the CFIA to respond to the second part of the access request by September 30, 2026 — representing a total extension of approximately 33 months from the original request. The Court declined to order interim document releases, as all three processing stages (including Department of Justice consultations) needed to be completed before disclosure, but it encouraged the CFIA to consider making interim disclosures if feasible. Regarding costs, Biogénie was ordered to pay $720 to the CFIA for its unsuccessful motion to file a reply brief, while the CFIA was ordered to pay Biogénie a total of $6,437.14 in costs and stenographer fees, with the parties authorized to offset amounts against each other.