The record

24 September 2026 · Canada Border Services Agency, enforcement file released under the Privacy Act, P-2026-40785 · entry of 16 May 2026 on a call with the RCMP White Butte Detachment, Saskatchewan

An RCMP member stopped a man at prayer. Ten days later she told the border agency it was “perhaps mental health issues”.

On 6 May 2026 a member of the White Butte Detachment drove a police vehicle at Danilo Dzyuban while he was praying in a business parking lot, asked whether he was impaired and took his name. Her file closed that day. On 16 May she told CBSA by telephone what she had thought and what she now thought, reported his religion, his funds and his route, and the Agency’s officer swore her account into a declaration that was “added to both GCMS and NCMS as he will likely be arrested in another province”. On 22 May the Agency arrested him in Ottawa.

Of note, she originally thought he was impaired by substances, but after talking to him she did not think it was substances, but perhaps mental health issues.

Canada Border Services Agency, enforcement file narrative, 16 May 2026, released 24 September 2026 · the entry as released

The full entry, what it shows, and what has been filed →

Complaints filed 24 September 2026 with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission · preservation demand to the detachment, no answer by 2 October 2026 · the Commanding Officer and two ministers, answers due 9 October 2026 · registered by the Commission as R2026-008858 · complaints to the Privacy Commissioner against the RCMP on 25 September and against the Agency on 28 September

25 September 2026 · Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, secretariat · answer to the letter of 24 September 2026, received in seven hours

No record, outside the remit, and a referral to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The letter asked the committee of the Australian Parliament that covers foreign affairs and defence whether it holds any record of an obligation of Australia to defend Canada against nuclear attack, and to name the instrument. The secretariat answered within seven hours:

The role of the committee is to undertake inquiries as referred to it by an Australian Government Minister or by a House of the Australian Parliament. The Committee does not hold records of the type you refer to, which fall outside its remit.

Secretariat, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, 25 September 2026 · the message in full

Seven hours, in writing, and an answer to the question: no record. The Department of National Defence of Canada took twenty days to say that it will not say whether one exists. The answer carries no name, and the referral is to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. A reply contesting each sentence went back the same day, and requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 went to that Department and to the Department of Defence.

Answered in seven hours · no record of an obligation to defend Canada against nuclear attack · referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

24 September 2026 · NORAD and USNORTHCOM, FOIA Requester Service Center, Peterson Space Force Base · acknowledgement of the request of 19 September 2026, Case Number 26-R-057

A case number on the sixth day, all four items accepted, and a fee waiver decided in three words

The day after the office wrote that a case number would follow “once the request is perfect”, it assigned one. The letter restates the four items with every search term as sent on 22 September, including the three pairings the office had objected to the day before, and names no period. On the fee waiver it says this:

Fee Waiver: Denied

FOIA Requester Service Center, HQ USNORTHCOM, 24 September 2026 · the letter in full

The Department of Defense regulation classes a denial of a fee waiver as an adverse determination and prescribes what the denial contains: the name and title of the official, the reasons, the instructions for an appeal within ninety days, and the notice of dispute resolution. The letter contains none of the four. The fee category assigned is “All Others”. An appeal on the fee waiver went the same day to the appellate authority, the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency, with a copy to the office.

Case Number 26-R-057 · the twentieth working day on the request falls on 19 October 2026 · appeal on the fee waiver filed 24 September 2026, decision due 23 October 2026

24 September 2026 · Privy Council Office, Access to Information and Privacy · file A-2026-00582, the second request to carry that number

One file number for two requests, a fifth refusal without reasons, and a clock the Office says has not started on a file it opened

A request filed on 24 September 2026 for the records on what becomes of the pension of a Governor in Council appointee dismissed for cause. The Office answered within nine hours. It created the file, recorded 24 September as the date of receipt, refused the fee waiver over the name of its delegate and without a reason, and wrote:

Please note, however, that the request is not considered complete until the prescribed $5 application fee has been received. As a result, processing of the request cannot begin, and the statutory timeline will not commence, until payment has been received.

Deputy Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Privy Council Office, 24 September 2026

Beneath the notice the Office forwarded its own exchange: the intake officer asked whether to create the request “as the fee has not been paid”, and the answer was “Yes. Please create the request”. The number assigned, A-2026-00582, is the number the same office assigned on 11 September 2026 to a different request, received on 8 September, on the federal response to the fertility rate. Two requests, sixteen days apart, one number. The Act runs its thirty days from receipt, subject to two sections on extensions and to none on fees, and the Office dated the receipt itself. This is the fifth waiver the Office has refused since 11 September, and the fifth without a reason after two written requests for them.

Answered the same day · complaint to the Information Commissioner the same day, the second on the Office’s handling of the fee · on the Office’s own date of receipt the thirtieth day is 24 October 2026

24 September 2026 · Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information and Privacy, Intake Unit · request of 24 September 2026, no file number

The third file, held with the sentence written for the second

A request filed on 24 September 2026 for the decisions of the Treasury Board under subsection 11(4) of the RCMP Superannuation Act since 2000, the analyses behind them, and the authorship of the Secretariat’s letter of 23 September. It asked for the fee to be waived and, failing that, for the decision in writing with reasons and a name. Eight hours later the Intake Unit answered:

Please be advised that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) has reviewed the circumstances of your request and has determined that we respectfully require that the $5 application fee be paid in order to continue processing your request. […] Further to our recent correspondence, your request will remain on hold pending receipt of the application fee.

Intake Unit, Access to Information and Privacy, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 24 September 2026

The message is the one the same unit sent on 9 September 2026 on file A-2026-00378, to the word: one hundred and eight words from “Please be advised” to “application fee”. “Further to our recent correspondence” was written for that file; on this request there had been none. No file number, no date of receipt, no reason, no name, and no decision on the waiver: the word does not appear. File A-2026-00329 is before the Information Commissioner on the same practice, and file A-2026-00378 went to the Commissioner on 23 September. This is the third. The day before, the Secretariat had written, on pension law, that authority “cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it”.

Answered the same day · complaint to the Information Commissioner the same day, the third on the Secretariat’s practice of holding requests for the fee · the thirtieth day after receipt is 24 October 2026

23 September 2026 · Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Pension Policy and Programs · reply to a letter to the President of the Treasury Board

The Secretariat confirms the gap, and says the President has no position on it

A letter of 2 September 2026 to the President of the Treasury Board put three questions. Why does subsection 11(4) of the RCMP Superannuation Act let the Treasury Board withhold the employer-funded share of a constable’s pension for misconduct, while the Public Service Superannuation Act, which carried a definition of misconduct until 1999, now carries nothing of the kind. Which of two routes does the President support, extending the rule to the public service or repealing it for the RCMP. And will the fee on the access request for the records behind the 1999 repeal, file A-2026-00378, be waived. The answer came from a sector of the Secretariat, over no name.

The Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) no longer contains an equivalent provision. Accordingly, neither the Treasury Board nor the President of the Treasury Board has authority under the PSSA to reduce or withhold a public servant’s pension benefit because the person was dismissed for misconduct. Authority to reduce or withhold such benefits cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it.

Pension Policy and Programs, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 23 September 2026

On the first question the message sends the matter to the Minister of Public Safety. The Financial Administration Act makes the Treasury Board a committee over which the President of the Treasury Board presides; the Public Service Superannuation Act defines “Minister” as the President of the Treasury Board; and the 1999 bill that repealed the definition was a Government bill sponsored by the President of the Treasury Board. On the second question the message states no position. On the third it says the Secretariat’s access office “has responded to you separately on that matter”. That office has written twice, on 2 and 9 September, demanding five dollars each time; neither letter decides the waiver, gives a reason, or names the officer who holds the power.

Answered the same day · complaint to the Information Commissioner on file A-2026-00378 the same day · the question on subsection 11(4) put to the Minister of Public Safety the same day · the Secretariat’s sentence goes into the Senate bill

23 September 2026 · NORAD and USNORTHCOM, FOIA and Privacy office, Peterson Space Force Base · second message on the request of 19 September 2026

A second request for clarification, a Canadian statute in an American answer, and still no case number

The search terms and custodians for all four items went back on 22 September. The office wrote again the next morning. It accepts items 2 and 4 and the specific terms under items 1 and 3 as “reasonable”, objects to three pairings of terms run across the e-mail of the whole command, and adds a paragraph about a statute of another country:

NORAD as a bi-national organization is not subject to the Access to Information Act (ATIA) requests. In coordination with Directorate Access to Information and Privacy, personnel posted to HQ NORAD should not be tasked with ATIA requests. All records under the control of DND are subject to the Act, but documents and IT systems used by personnel posted to HQ NORAD are not physically under the Department’s control.

FOIA and Privacy Officer, NORAD and USNORTHCOM, 23 September 2026

USNORTHCOM would likely use the combination of a 6-year window and broad keyword combinations to issue an administrative rejection. […] Once the request is perfect we will provide you with a case number for tracking purposes.

FOIA and Privacy Officer, NORAD and USNORTHCOM, 23 September 2026

The statute allows an agency one request for information; this is the second. The regulation under which the request was held “in abeyance” was asked for on 22 September and is still not named; the word does not appear in the Department of Defense regulation. The statute and the regulation both require a tracking number on receipt, and neither contains the word “perfected”. The message does not say whether records held at HQ NORAD are within the search under the United States statute. The answer went back the same day, with the search for the three contested pairings confined to four custodians and the period unchanged. A request for the same class of record, and for the Department of National Defence’s position that HQ NORAD records are not under its control, was filed with that Department the same day.

Answered the same day · the twentieth working day falls on 19 October 2026 · a mirror request filed with National Defence on 23 September 2026

17–22 September 2026 · Public Mobile, Escalations · complaint before the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecom-television Services

Three accounts of one evening, from one provider

A prepaid line was charged for a cycle that, by the provider’s own statement, ran with another carrier. The notice the provider relies on was sent by text message to a line whose text messaging did not work. Asked in writing what its records show, the provider answered three times.

Our system shows that the text message failed in some way (likely due to not being delivered), so I would expect that you did not receive it.

Public Mobile Escalations, 17 September 2026

In addition to the text message already provided, we sent you a text message to alert you of the failed port on July 31 at 20:37 ET.

Public Mobile Escalations, 18 September 2026

There were no issues with the text message on July 31 at 6:43PM. … We sent the text message at 8:13PM to the same number, and it shows as sent, meaning it was not rejected in some way by Freedom Mobile.

Public Mobile Escalations, 21 September 2026

The same letter states the limit of what the record can prove:

We can only confirm that a message was sent. We cannot confirm that you received it.

Public Mobile Escalations, 21 September 2026

The delivery records themselves have not been produced. On 22 September the correspondence ended in one line.

We do not accept your demands, so we will advise the CCTS accordingly.

Public Mobile Escalations, 22 September 2026

Three written answers to one question, from one provider, in one file · all three are before the Commissioner

22 September 2026 · NORAD and USNORTHCOM, FOIA and Privacy office, Peterson Space Force Base · request of 20 September 2026

Too broad, in abeyance, under a regulation it does not name

A request under the Freedom of Information Act asked for four classes of record: any estimate of the cost to the United States of the aerospace defence of Canadian territory, any assessment of the consequences of a termination of the NORAD Agreement of 2006, any record of what further Canadian contribution would reduce the burden borne by the United States, and any planning for a Canada that holds an independent nuclear capability. Period: 1 January 2020 onward. The office answered on the second day:

The period of 6 years is too broad and would result in an over cumbersome of records. Is there a specific incident, moment, or action that you are looking for specifically? […] In accordance with agency regulations, we are holding your request in abeyance pending your response. Please submit your clarified request within 30 calendar days from this email. If we do not receive a response or clarification from you, we will assume you no longer wish to pursue this matter and will close your file.

FOIA and Privacy Officer, NORAD and USNORTHCOM, 22 September 2026

No case number was assigned, and the request for a fee waiver was not mentioned. The regulation relied on is not named. The statute allows an agency one request for information and tolls the clock until the answer arrives. The answer went back the next day with search terms for each of the four items and the custodians most likely to hold the records. The period stands.

Answered within a day · the twenty-day period under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) resumed on receipt of the answer

22 September 2026 · Public Safety Canada, Access to Information and Privacy · file A-2026-00209

A question on the twenty-second day, with a month to answer it

The Department registered the request on 31 August, waived the fee and set 1 October as its own legislative due date, all in one letter. For twenty-two days it raised no question. On 22 September, nine days before its own date, it wrote:

One of our teams would like to confirm whether or not you would accept final versions or the most recent version should a final version not exist. […] Your request will be considered abandoned and the file will be closed should the required clarifications not be received by October 22, 2026.

ATIP Administrative Officer, Intake Unit, Public Safety Canada, 22 September 2026

The Access to Information Act defines a record as any documentary material, regardless of medium or form. A draft is a record. The Act suspends the thirty days in one case only, an application to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1.2), and contains no provision under which a registered request becomes abandoned. The answer went back the same day: all versions, and the date of 1 October stands.

Answered the same day · the request concerns the National Risk Profile and the case of war under the Emergency Management Act

17 September 2026 · National Defence, Access to Information and Privacy · files A-2026-01143, A-2026-01144, A-2026-01154

Three files, fourteen questions, the same forty-six words

Three requests were filed on 29 and 30 August 2026. Between them they carry fourteen numbered items: whether the Department holds any assessment of the reliability of allied nuclear assurances, whether it has ever costed an independent Canadian deterrent, which instrument records an obligation of any state to defend Canada against nuclear attack, whether the plan for nuclear attack that subsection 6(1) of the Emergency Management Act requires exists, and the nuclear certification status of aircraft Canada is buying, among others. Each request asked that, where no record exists for an item, the answer say so item by item. Three letters arrived on 17 September, over the signature block of the Executive Director, Access to Information and Privacy. The operative passage is the same in all three, to the word:

We regret to advise you that this Department neither confirms nor denies records exist pursuant to section 10(2) of the Access to Information Act. If the documentation did exist, it would be exempted in its entirety pursuant to section 15(1) of the Access to Information Act.

National Defence, files A-2026-01143, A-2026-01144 and A-2026-01154, 17 September 2026

No record was released. No item was answered on its own. Forty-six words cover fourteen questions on different subjects across two different periods. Both provisions relied on confer a discretion to be exercised on the particular information; one text applied to fourteen unrelated items is the record of a discretion that was not exercised. One of the fourteen items is a plan that a statute requires a minister to prepare. The Department will not say whether it exists.

Three complaints filed with the Information Commissioner on 20 September 2026 · the same questions put to the Minister of National Defence in writing the same day · testimony on the subject placed before the members of a Senate committee on 22 September 2026 · the finding published on 24 September 2026 and put in writing the same day to thirty-four addressees in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and the European Union, with 8 October 2026 and 15 October 2026 as the dates for an answer

2–4 September 2026 · City of Ottawa, Access to Information and Privacy Office · Flag Protocol procedures

One statute, two cities, opposite answers — and then the door closed

The City of Ottawa publishes its Flag Protocol procedures. Under the heading Legislative and Administrative Authorities, the entry reads: None. The same procedures direct that the City will not fly the flag of a group whose undertakings or philosophy are “politically or religiously motivated”. An officer of the corporation approved them in 2006 and the City Clerk revised them in 2017 and in 2020. No by-law and no recorded vote of Council appears anywhere in the record.

A records request asked on what authority that rule stands and what the symbolic displays have cost. It carried a written request to waive the fee under section 45(4) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which requires the head to waive payment where it is fair and equitable, having regard among other things to financial hardship.

Ottawa answered on 2 September:

As has been explained to you previously, the legislated $5.00 application fee for submitting an access to information request cannot be waived. As such, we are unable to process your request.

City of Ottawa, Access to Information and Privacy Office, 2 September 2026

The City of London answered a separate request under the same statute the following day:

In terms of the fee waiver for the application fee and any additional fees, our office would need documentation demonstrating financial hardship. If you have a copy of a recent tax summary, proof of income document, etc., we will review your request for a fee waiver.

City of London, 3 September 2026

One Act of Ontario, two municipalities, opposite positions. London reviews a waiver of the application fee on evidence of hardship. Ottawa states that the same waiver is impossible and closes the file.

A written request for reconsideration set out four grounds: the answer from London, the absence of any provision or criterion in Ottawa’s decision, documented hardship, and the public interest on the face of the record sought. Ottawa answered on 4 September, without addressing any of them:

You may appeal the City’s decision to the IPC. The ATIP Office will not respond to any further emails on the matter.

Access to Information and Privacy Office, Office of the City Clerk, 4 September 2026

Section 45(4) requires the head to decide whether a waiver is fair and equitable. No such decision was made, no provision was named, and no criterion was applied. The correspondence was ended instead.

Third written refusal from the same office in eight days, across three separate subjects · the rule governing municipal flagpoles still records its own legislative authority as “None”

2 September 2026 · Global Affairs Canada, Access to Information and Privacy · file A-2026-00737

The same request, two departments, two answers

A records request was filed with several federal institutions on identical terms, each carrying the same written request that the five-dollar application fee be waived.

Public Safety Canada answered on 31 August. It opened file A-2026-00209, waived the fee, set its own statutory deadline at 1 October 2026, and set out in the same letter the right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days.

Global Affairs Canada answered on 2 September on the identical request. The waiver was refused, processing would not begin until the five dollars arrived, and if the money did not arrive by 2 October the request would be treated as abandoned.

Same statute, same facts, same fee, ten days apart · the refusal was reversed the following morning after a written request for reconsideration

1 September 2026 · Global Affairs Canada · file A-2026-00736

A notice that never says when the clock started

The acknowledgement quotes the request back in full and explains the thirty-day period. Twice, where the date belongs, the letter reads:

… received on . … within 30 days of .

Acknowledgement letter, file A-2026-00736

The department’s own notice does not state the day its clock began. A deadline that no document fixes is a deadline the institution can place wherever it later finds convenient. Filed as received, with the date of transmission kept, because that is now the only date either side can point to.

No correction has been issued

Standing policy · Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Department of Justice

A channel closed to the people who need it

A records request to the immigration court system returns an automatic answer:

As of December 1, 2022, EOIR no longer accepts FOIA or PA requests by email.

Automatic reply, EOIR FOIA mailbox

The mailbox is read only for files already open. A person outside the United States, without an address in it, is left with the postal route and the online portal. The requester who most needs the record is the one least able to reach the counter.

Request refiled through the surviving channel · record subsequently produced: 793 pages and 11 hearing recordings