Report 25 - Access to Information Review Task Force

MANAGING RESPONSE TIMES UNDER CANADIAN ACCESS TO INFORMATION LEGISLATION

2.6 A Final Reflection on Timelines

A running theme in this report is that there is no magic bullet for meeting and managing timelines in an access to information regime. Indeed anyone who has ever worked in a very large bureaucracy knows how challenging it is to meet any timelines; in the case of ATI, the fact that time lines are met in most of the cases is the result of considerable effort on the part of government institutions. For federal departments, complying with the timelines is a real challenge, one they often feel is unfair (such as being in deemed refusal for being two days late), or where they are under enormous operational pressure to meet their main mandate.

For users, complying with timeliness for their access requests is an important if not the most important concern. Progress has to be made.

This report suggests that timelines should not be looked at in isolation. They can only be managed in a system that has some "internal regulation" and proper management. A number of different factors have to come together for ATI timeliness to be achieved.

In fact, a healthy ATI process is like an ecological organism. It requires an impressive range of linkages, including as many as possible of the following:

• A good faith requester who will dialogue with the institution to clarify his/her request and focus or refine it, as more information becomes available about the volume of documents involved. Requesters who make broad 'fishing expedition' requests involving the processing of thousand of pages and then finally select a dozen pages, not only diminish support and respect for ATI in the public service, but contribute to delay problems for all requesters;
  
  
• A skilled, knowledgeable ATI coordinator who is both respected and influential in the institution and has the appropriate delegation powers. This implies that the working conditions of ATI staff (classification, rewards, status, career path, succession planning, etc.) are such that institutions can attract and retain high quality staff;
  
  
• Excellent on-going training and support by the ATI Policy centre - the Treasury Board Secretariat in this case, and to some extent the Information Law and Privacy Section of the Department of Justice,- so that ATI staff have access to advice and expertise as needed;
  
  
• A Deputy Minister openly supportive of, and accessible to, the ATI Coordinator, who will ensure adequate resources for the ATI unit (including emergency resources for unexpected peaks), will make it known in the department that compliance with ATI timelines is expected, will take an interest in monitoring ATI compliance, and will intervene to deal with blockages in the system as required;
  
  
• A Minister making clear that his/her legitimate communications needs with respect to the release of records should never impede timely compliance with the Act.
  
  
• Program managers and staff that are aware of their access responsibilities (that it is part of their job as public servants to provide information) and the importance of meeting timeframes. It is a common fallacy that ATI requests affect only ATI units - they impact program units significantly, where they cannot but interfere with the primary mandate of the unit and perhaps tie up irreplaceable specialists in reviewing records for long periods of time. It is unrealistic to think that the ATI staff could acquire the subject matter expertise required to review records properly for exemptions in specialized fields (legal, scientific, etc.). Program staff are expected to meet timelines for ATI while meeting all the commitments of their regular responsibilities. They need to be encouraged and supported in making ATI work.
  
  
• A reasonable regime of extensions that can accommodate unexpected new circumstances and encourages dialogue and accommodation with requesters;
  
  
• Good ATI practices such as dialogue with the requester, assistance in scoping and clarifying the request, on-going release of documents as they become available, providing explanations why some material is difficult to obtain, educating requesters, etc.;
  
  
• Good records management - there can be no compliance with timeliness without good records management - including appropriate creation, filing, and weeding of records;
  
  
• Educated third parties understanding both the principles of the Act and the protection afforded for their confidential information.
  
  
• Finally, a redress process that is helpful in solving delay problems - not compounding the problem (there is anecdotal evidence that some departments have ended up spending more time being investigated by the Information Commissioner than in actual processing of access requests). The redress process should support optimal organizational learning.

Appendix 1: Time Limits and Extensions: Statutory Background and Official Commentary

TIME LIMITS AND EXTENSIONS: Statutory Background and Official Commentary

1.1 Canada: Access to Information Act, 1982

Response Time: Section 7 - Subject to ss. 8,9 and 11, the head has 30 days after request is received to respond in writing. If the head fails to give access within this time frame then refusal is deemed to have taken place under section 10(3).

Transfer Time: Section 8 - The head has 15 days after request received to transfer the request to an institution he or she considers to have a greater interest as defined in the section.

Extension: Section 9 - Both the response time and the transfer time may be extended for a "reasonable period of time, having regard to the circumstances." "Reasonable period of time" is neither defined in the section, or in the Act. The circumstances under which the time may be extended are the following:

• a large number of records are requested and meeting the statutory time limit would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operation;
  
  
• the institution has to conduct consultations before responding to the request which could not be completed within the original time limit; or
  
  
• a ss. 27(1) third party notice relating to the request is given.

COMMENTARY:

In its June, 1977 Green Paper, the Liberal government of Pierre Eliot Trudeau included this (edited) statement on administrative deadlines:

Various commentators have noted that the essence of the so-called "freedom of information" idea is not simply access to government documents, but timely access. The United States has found by several years of experience that only stringent administrative deadlines - ten working days for initial decision …would make the Freedom of Information Act work to the satisfaction of the Congress.

It seems clear that some system of administrative deadlines would be necessary for a Canadian freedom of information statute, for otherwise the obligations placed on the government by such a statute could be met in such a dilatory fashion as to negative entirely the intent of the statute. It seems equally clear that to make this system of administrative deadlines as stringent as that embodied in the American Freedom of Information Act -deadlines which are not in practice being met - would be to force an extraordinary diversion of resources to the administration of the statute, since under tight

deadlines staffing must be keyed to peak demand periods, and, despite this diversion, lead to inevitable and widespread non-compliance. An optimal set of administrative deadlines would combine sufficient pressure to meet the reasonable needs of applicants with the realistic possibility of consistent compliance without an undue increase in administrative staff and cost.

The most important deadline, best set by regulation, would be the time within which an initial decision to release all or part or none of the material relevant to any application be rendered to the applicant. An appropriate time period for this might be twenty working days…. ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾(emphasis added)

In its report entitled Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the Right to Privacy, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on the Review of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (hereinafter the Committee) made recommendations in 1987 relating to the issue of time limits in the Access to Information Act. ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾

The Committee recommended:

• "that the Access to Information Act be amended to specify that the period for processing an application commences on receipt of the application;" ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ (p. 67)
  
  
• "that where the government institution fails to provide access within the time limits set out in the Act, the applicant should thereupon be notified of his or her right to complain to the Information Commissioner;" (p. 67)
  
  
• "That the initial response period available to government institutions be reduced from 30 days to 20 days, with a maximum extension period of forty days, unless the Information Commissioner grants a certificate as to the reasonableness of a further extension. The onus for justifying such extensions shall be on the government institution. The Treasury Board is urged to monitor the cost implications of this recommendation and to report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its findings within one year of the implementation of this measure;" (p. 67) The government responded: "The government believes that these time limits are reasonable and should not be changed without evidence that the administration of the legislation would be improved." ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾
  
  
• "that the Access to Information Act be amended to authorize the Information Commissioner to make an order waiving all access fees if a government institution fails to meet specified time limits without adequate justification;" (p. 67)
  
  
• "that the Treasury Board, in conjunction with the Public Service Commission, undertake a study to investigate methods for enhancing timely compliance with the Access to Information Act. This investigation should commence as soon as possible and a report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be submitted within one year;" (p. 67)
  
  
• "that both Acts be amended to impose a time limitation of sixty days on investigations by the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. If a report of the investigation is not forthcoming within this period, a certificate shall be given to the applicant permitting a direct resort to judicial review. The certificate should contain no recommendations but simply a statement that the investigation could not be completed within the allotted sixty-day period." (p. 68) The government responded: "The Information Commissioner indicated that these time limits might create practical difficulties for complainants who wish to go to court before an investigation is completed. The government believes that these implications [including interference with the ability to mediate settlements to complaints] outweigh any benefit to be derived from the implementation of this recommendation." ⁽¹⁵¹⁾

The 1993-94 Annual Report of Information Commissioner, John Grace, who served from 1990-1998, highlighted the issue of delays in various government departments:

Departmental delays

"According to the latest Treasury Board statistics (1992-93) 57.5 per cent of requests were answered within 30 days, 21.1 per cent within 30 to 60 days and 21.4 per cent in excess of 60 days. When some 43 per cent of all requests are not answered within the statutory 30-day response period, it is cause for concern. To address the problem of delays in departments, the Commissioner continued to review the response-time performance in selected institutions. The first such review was completed early in 1993-94.It was conducted at Transport Canada's invitation and with its full co-operation. The review found a number of areas in which administrative practices required change to reduce periods of delay. Complaints of delay against Transport Canada tallied 9.5 per cent of all requests to the department in fiscal year 1992-93. By contrast, Transport Canada was found to have exceeded the statutory time limit in its response to 40.7 per cent of the requests completed last year. Clearly, many requesters did not complain when their requests were not answered in a timely fashion. As a result of the review, the Commissioner made several recommendations. For their part, Transport Canada officials recognized the need to improve. They developed a plan to respond to the Commissioner's recommendations and made some prompt changes. Transport Canada affirmed its commitment to service to the public under the Access to Information Act." (pp. 43-44) (emphasis added)

Who's next?

"The experience of this reporting year has put several other institutions on the short list as candidates for a response-time review, notably the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence, and Health Canada. During the coming year, the Commissioner's officials will arrange to conduct at least one review. As before, the goal of the review will be to find the root cause of delay problems and to recommend changes in practices and procedures" (p. 44) (emphasis added)

Some statistics say more than others

"Government departments and agencies have a duty to report yearly on the access Act. Each has a statutory duty to report to Parliament and an administrative duty to report to the Treasury Board Secretariat which is responsible for the Act's administration throughout

government. Those reports tell readers, among other things, the number of requests each department or agency received, the number completed, exemptions and exclusions invoked, fees collected, salary expense, time extensions granted and the time it took to complete requests. The Treasury Board Secretariat then compiles the statistics and reports to Parliament. While a great deal of information is gathered, these reports do not provide a sufficient measure of accountability for the time departments take to answer requests. The reporting form designed by Treasury Board provides a quick and easy method of determining the number of cases delayed unreasonably beyond the 30-day time limit. It does not, however, allow readers to tally the number of cases that also fell in arrears after an extension of time had been claimed and expired. Thus, the most telling story goes untold. Neither does this report allow Parliament or the public to know precisely how well or how badly institutions are faring in meeting time limits set out in the Act despite that being the report's raison d'être. The Commissioner has reason to suspect that the Act has been breached, as deadlines slipped away, many times more often than requesters filed complaints about access delayed. Discussions with Treasury Board officials have begun on the design of a new report format that would more accurately show when institutions meet their statutory time limits. Parliamentarians, senior officials and the public deserve as clear a picture as possible. Stay tuned." (p. 44) (emphasis added)

The latest reports of the Information Commissioner of Canada are quoted liberally in the text of this report.

1.2 PROVINCIAL

1.2.1 Quebec: Loi sur l'accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels, 1982

Response Time: Section 47 - The person in charge has 20 days to respond to the request.

Transfer Time: Section 47(4) - The person in charge must, promptly and not later than twenty days from the date the request was received, inform the applicant that his request should more appropriately be transferred to another public body or that it concerns a document filed by or for another public body.

Extension: Section 47 - The person in charge has 20 days to respond to the request. If the request cannot be processed within the time limit provided without impeding the normal course of operations of the public body, the person in charge may, before the expiry of the time, extend it by not over ten days. He must then give notice thereof by mail to the applicant within the time limit provided in the first paragraph.

1.2.2 Ontario: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1988

Response Time: Section 26 - The head of the institution to which the request is made or if the 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 respond within 30 days after the request is received.

Transfer Time: Section 25 - The head shall make all necessary inquiries to determine whether another institution has custody or control of the record. Where the head determines that another institution has custody or control of the record, the head shall within 15 days after the request is received, forward the request to the other institution.

Extension: Section 27 - A head may extend the time limit set out in section 26 for a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances where, (a) the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution; or (b) consultations with a person outside the institution are necessary to comply with the request and cannot reasonably be completed within the time limit. (emphasis added).

COMMENTARY:

Selected extracts from the Ontario, Management Board Secretariat, Information and Privacy Office, Summary of Orders/Privacy Reports. ⁽¹⁵²⁾

The key point is that the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner has issued many Orders dealing with the management of delays in meeting timelines and the granting of extensions. This is active, ongoing oversight. A small sample are listed in outline form below.

The institution may be ordered to respond to the requester without charging a fee where the institution's time extension was clearly unreasonable and where, given the date of the appeal, the time reduction is no longer a relevant consideration. (Order #P-193)

The institution must provide sufficient information to persuade the Commissioner that the number of records and the need for consultation justify the length of the extension claimed. (Order #M-1)

The institution must provide sufficient evidence to the Commissioner to establish in precise terms why the time extension is sought. (Orders #P-193, P-197, M-581)

The institution must do more than simply assert that satisfying the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution; it must provide evidence as to how this would occur. Moreover the institution ought to seek the extension within the 30 day time-frame of the Act. In this case, despite the fact that the institution had a detailed listing of the records requested, it did not seek the time extension until after the 30 day period had elapsed and made no submissions to the Commissioner as to the nature and length of the searches necessary to locate the records. Consequently the institution was ordered to provide a final decision to the requester in 11 days and not to charge a fee for the processing of the request other than for photocopying charges. (Order #M-439)

In this case, the Commissioner approved a 23-day extension of time regarding 3 requests involving a large number of records. The requests required that the records be carefully reviewed by individuals who were acquainted with the records. Pressing operational requirements in the institution meant that these individuals had other duties that they had to attend to in addition to processing the FIPPA request. (Order #P-517)

A time extension was approved, because of the broad nature of the request. A large number of policies and procedures had to be reviewed in Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto, to ensure that all records responsive to the request were found. The institution noted that the individual who was most familiar with the records was based in Toronto and had to go to the other cities to review the records. The Commission affirmed that the 39-day time extension was reasonable in the circumstances. (Order #P-617) (emphasis added)

In this case, the Commissioner authorized the time extension of 30 days where the institution was able to establish that meeting the time limits of the Act would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The records included some 300 thick files and the institution indicated that the person who would understand the technical language was not always available because of staff shortages owing to holidays, social contract days and others factors. As a result, the institution's ability to search for the records took longer than envisaged by the Act. (Order #M-261) (emphasis added)

In this case, the Commissioner was not satisfied that the absence of the Director of Engineering Services for a period of three weeks was a relevant factor in determining whether the time extension was appropriate. The institution provided no explanation as to why this particular individual was required to undertake or supervise the search. In addition, some 54 days had elapsed between the time of the initial request to the commencement of the director's leave. The institution did not explain why the search did not take place prior to his or her departure or why no efforts to search had taken place. In addition, the institution failed to provide evidence of the number of records or the volume of records which must be searched. The Commission ruled that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that the time extension was reasonable. (Order #M-307) (emphasis added)

The time extension of 104 days was authorized by the Commissioner. The institution stated, through sworn affidavit, that because its filing system did not index cases in the way the request was framed, it would have to search all of its files during the relevant time period. The institution stated that 16,453 files would have to be searched and that it would take a staff member 15 minutes to search each file. The institution submitted that it could not devote a full-time employee to the task. (Order #P-682)

An institution cannot claim an extension of time simply because the same requester makes a number of separate requests that collectively involve a large number of records or necessitate consultation. Each request must be considered separately. An institution that is faced with a number of requests which strain its resources may: 1. Negotiate with the requester who sends in numerous requests to "waive" the 30-day period or to prioritize the requests, or 2. Allocate its resources so that when there is the need, additional staff can assist those who routinely work on requests. (Orders #P-28, P-93, P-100, P-174, P-175, P-176)

The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, recently made an issue of response time standards in her annual report for 1999:

• In last year's report, I pointed out that, based on a three-year assessment period, less than 50% of the requests made to provincial ministries and agencies were answered within the 30-day time period required by the Act. During 1999, some institutions improved their compliance rates significantly, but far too many others still failed to meet their statutory obligations with sufficient regularity to meet acceptable standards. Last year, I recommended three steps that could be taken by the government to improve compliance rates. I believe these warrant repeating: (1) add response standard commitments directly to the government's Quality Service framework, and link these commitments to Deputy Minister performance contracts; (2) classify Coordinators appropriately, and delegate decision-making authority to them in recognition of their expertise; and (3) ensure adequate resourcing for FOI program management. This year I'd like to add three more recommendations:
  
  
• Include the effective administration of freedom of information and protection of privacy as a core business of Management Board Secretariat, and link performance measures to the Ontario Public Service business planning process;
  
  
• Have the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, as the minister responsible for the Acts, personally write to all heads of ministries and senior government officials who did not meet the response time standards two-thirds of the time, asking for an accounting of the steps that will be taken in the upcoming year to ensure substantial improvements;
  
  
• Amend section 57(4)/45(4) of the Acts to require institutions to waive the payment of any fees if requests have not been properly answered within the statutory time frames. ⁽¹⁵³⁾ (emphasis added)

In her 1999 annual report, the Commissioner also reported on the response rate times for each government institution:

"Overall, 50% of all provincial requests were answered within 30 days in 1999, up from 42% in 1998. Although an improvement, this means that half of the requests made to provincial ministries did not meet the legislated response standard. …

The results of several ministries that received large numbers of requests are particularly troublesome. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care met the statutory standard on only 43.2% of the 922 requests it completed in 1999. Of the 3,911 requests completed by the Ministry of the Environment in 1999, only 29.5% were answered within 30 days. And of the 108 requests completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, only 20.4% were answered within 30 days.

Ministries provided a variety of reasons for not complying with the legislated standard on a consistent basis. These include the length of time needed to acquire internal approvals, the high number of requests that require external consultation, the large number of complex requests that consume limited staff time, and an increase in the number of requests received by certain ministries."

The IPC recognizes that these figures may not reflect requests where the statutory deadline has been legitimately extended in accordance with the legislation; for example, where notice of a request must be given to third parties, the request involves a large volume of records, an extensive search, or consultations with a person outside the institution is required. In order to provide a clearer compliance picture, the IPC has asked institutions to start collecting this information. However, legitimate extensions of the time frames cannot justify the low level of compliance by some government ministries, or the wide disparity in performance from one institution to another.

"The reporting of these detailed statistics also provides an opportunity to recognize ministries that achieved a high level of success in meeting the 30-day response standard. Of the ministries which received a large volume of requests, five -- Community and Social Services, Transportation, Attorney General/ONAS, Labour, and Consumer and Commercial Relations - are to be commended for answering more than 75% of their requests within the 30-day standard. Consumer and Commercial Relations is to be applauded for achieving an outstanding 91.2%." ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾

The Commissioner further noted that municipalities had a much better response rate than government institutions: "Municipal government organizations, which have consistently outperformed their provincial counterparts in meeting the 30-day response standard, responded to 85% of requests within 30 days in 1999, a one per cent increase. Overall, 97% of municipal requests in 1999 were answered within 60 days, with less than one per cent taking more than 120 days to complete."

1.2.3 British Columbia: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1993

COMMENTARY:

Extracts from the: Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, Report, Third Session, Thirty-sixth Parliament, British Columbia Legislative Assembly, July 15, 1999. ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ This was the equivalent committee to the one that produced the federal Open and Shut report in March, 1987.

• Time limit for responding-section 7

"Section 7 of the FIPPA requires public bodies to respond to a request for information by 30 days after it is received, unless, under section 10, the time limit is extended, or, under section 11, the request or record requested must be transferred to another public body.

The Committee heard from many witnesses that public bodies frequently exceed the 30-day time limit before completing information requests. Witnesses recommended that the

Information and Privacy Commissioner be empowered to impose and enforce penalties for time line violations, possibly through periodic audits into the numbers of time infractions and time extensions made by public bodies.

In general, the Committee agreed that all public bodies should be encouraged to complete information requests in a timely manner, using the statutory time requirements only as outside limits. Members also discussed the possibility of providing incentives to public bodies for complying with timelines as required by section 7. The Committee agreed that waiving fees for requests that are not fulfilled within the prescribed time would be an appropriate incentive.

Recommendation #3: That public bodies comply with time lines under section 7 of the Act, and that in the event of non-compliance with time lines, fees for requests that are not fulfilled within the prescribed time be waived."

• Transferring a Request - Section 11

"Under section 11(1), public bodies are allowed 10 days to transfer a request or a record requested to another public body if the record requested was produced by or in the custody or control of that body, or that body was the first to obtain the record.

Some public bodies told the Committee that it is difficult to complete transfers in the 10 days allowed. They asked that the Committee consider amending the Act to extend the time period for transferring requests or records. The Committee accepted witnesses' recommendation to extend to 20 days the current 10 days public bodies are allowed for transfers. This change is recommended in light of the complexity and volume of requests that public bodies receive and the shortage of resources available to public bodies for administering the Act. The 30-day time limit for responding to requests should be retained.

Recommendation #4:That section 11(1) be amended to allow public bodies 20 days for transferring an information request."

The BC Legislature has not yet seen fit to make any of the recommended changes in the Act.

In his first annual reports as Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, David Loukidelis, has twice highlighted access delays in his commissioner's messages (which are quoted from below as appropriate): "The delays we are finding with some public bodies threaten to become a systemic barrier to the right of access." ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

1.2.4 Alberta: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1994

Response Time: Section 10 - 10(1) The head of a public body must make every reasonable effort to respond to a request not later than 30 days after receiving it unless

(a) that time limit is extended under section 13, or

(b) the request has been transferred under section 14 to another public body.

(2) The failure of the head to respond to a request within the 30-day period or any extended period is to be treated as a decision to refuse access to the record.

Extension of Time: "Section 13: 13(1) The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request for up to 30 days or, with the Commissioner's permission, for a longer period if

(a) the applicant does not give enough detail to enable the public body to identify a requested record,

(b) a large number of records are requested or must be searched and responding within the period set out in section 10 would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body,

(c) more time is needed to consult with a third party or another public body before deciding whether or not to grant access to a record, or

(d) a third party asks for a review under section 62(2) or 73(3)." (emphasis added)

Transfer Time: Section 14 - The Head may transfer a request within 15 days of its receipt to the public body who produced the record, who first obtained the record or who has custody or control of the record. Then, the head of the public body to which the request is transferred must make every reasonable effort to respond to the request not later than 30 days after receiving the request unless that time limit is extended under section 13.

Selected extracts from: Alberta, Legislative Review Final Report (March, 1999) ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾

"On March 2, 1998 the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed a motion appointing an all-party Committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act … and to provide to the Assembly a report that includes any recommended amendments."

"The Committee determined that generally the existing time frames within which to respond to access requests and the duty of public bodies to assist applicants remained appropriate. These sections of the Act strike a proper balance in ensuring applicants receive information quickly, while not unduly burdening the public body."

Time Extensions

"There was concern that the reasons permitted for time extensions do not adequately cover all situations that occur."

"Although there was not consensus about the impact of the submission of multiple requests with the intent of taking advantage of the fee structures, or the effect of the time required to process the requests, or that multiple requests for the same records should interfere with the response time, there was recognition of potential problems. The Committee accepted that public bodies could be placed under strain due to concurrent requests, but not that there should be automatic extensions. The Committee agreed that new grounds should be added to those which the Commissioner could take into consideration when determining whether to approve an extension, and recommended:

26. That section 13 of the Act should be amended to add a new provision that would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to approve a time extension for processing access requests by taking into account the total effect of concurrent requests by the same applicant, or by two or more applicants who work in association." (The Legislature enacted this amendment.)

1.2.5 Manitoba: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1997

Response Time: Section 11- Unless the time limit is extended or the request is transferred, the head of a public body must respond not later than 30 days after a request is received. The failure of the head of a public body to respond to a request within the 30 day period or any extended period is to be treated as a decision to refuse access to the record.

Repetitive or incomprehensible

request: Section 13(1): These are criteria for refusing to give access to a record.

Extension: Section 15 - The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request for up to an additional 30 days, or for a longer period if the Ombudsman agrees based upon certain factors.

Transfer Time: Section 16- The head of the public body may transfer the request and, if necessary, the record within 7 days of receipt of the request to the public body who produced the record, who first obtained the record or who has custody or control of the record. Then, the head of the public body to which the request is transferred shall make every reasonable effort to respond to the request within 30 days after receiving it unless that time limit is extended under section 15 or notice is given to a third party under section 33. (emphasis added)

Criteria for an extension of the time limit by the head or Ombudsman under section 15:

applicant failed to provide enough detail to enable the public body to identify the record requested;

• meeting the request requires the search of a large number of records and responding within the section 11 time period would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body;
• time is needed to consult with a third party or another public body before deciding whether or not to grant access to a record; or
• a third party makes a complaint under subsection 59(2). (emphasis added)

Manitoba can boast that in 1999 "about 90% of the overall response times of both departments and governments agencies was within the 30-day statutory requirement. This maintained a response standard rivaled by very few other Canadian jurisdictions as noted in an independent 1998 examination of the performance of governments with freedom of information laws." ⁽¹⁵⁸⁾ Its FOI Act was proclaimed in May 1998.

1.3 INTERNATIONAL: Laws and Commentary

1.3.1 United States: Freedom of Information Act, 1966

Response Time: Section §552(A)(6)(a) - (A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall - (i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and (ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. ….

Section §552(A)(6)(C)(i) -Any person making a request to any agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. If the Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to such person making such request. Any notification of denial of any request for records under this subsection shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of such request.

(emphasis added)

Transfer Time: There are no references to transferring a record nor transfer times in the Act. The sections on time limits and the multitrack system in place for processing requests indicate that the government agency may consult with two or more agencies with a substantial interest in the

request. Otherwise, it is up to the requestor to address their request to the appropriate agency.

Extension: Section § 552(a)(6)(B)(i) - In unusual circumstances as specified in this subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i) or clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than ten working days, except as provided in clause (ii) of this subparagraph. (ii) With respect to a request for which a written notice under clause (i) extends the time limits prescribed under clause (i) of subparagraph

(A), the agency shall notify the person making the request if the request cannot be processed within the time limit specified in that clause and shall provide the person an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within that time limit or an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request. Refusal by the person to reasonably modify the request or arrange such an alternative time frame shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist for purposes of subparagraph (C). (iii) As used in this subparagraph, ''unusual circumstances'' means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular requests (I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; (II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or (III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein. (emphasis added)

Multi-track

processing: Section § 552(a)(6)(D)(i) - Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for multitrack processing of requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both) involved in processing requests. (ii) Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing. (iii) This subparagraph shall not be considered to affect the requirement under subparagraph (C) to exercise due diligence. (emphasis added)

Expedited Processing:

Section § 552(a)(6)(E)(i) - Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for expedited processing of requests for records - (I) in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need; and (II) in other cases determined by the agency. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), regulations under this subparagraph must ensure - (I) that a determination of whether to provide expedited processing shall be made, and notice of the determination shall be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days after the date of the request; and (II) expeditious consideration of administrative appeals of such determinations of whether to provide expedited processing. (iii) An agency shall process as soon as practicable any request for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing under this subparagraph. Agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request for expedited processing pursuant to this

subparagraph, and failure by an agency to respond in a timely manner to such a request shall be subject to judicial review under paragraph

(4), except that the judicial review shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the determination…. (v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ''compelling need'' means - (I) that a failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis under this paragraph could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or (II) with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity. (vi) A demonstration of a compelling need by a person making a request for expedited processing shall be made by a statement certified by such person to be true and correct to the best of such person's knowledge and belief. (emphasis added)

COMMENTARY:

US Department of Justice, Freedom of Information Act Reference Guide, (August, 2000) ⁽¹⁵⁹⁾

"V. Response Times

Under the statute, all federal agencies are required to respond to a ATIA request within twenty business days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. This period does not begin until the request is actually received by the ATIA office of the component that maintains the records sought. An agency is not required to send out the releasable documents by the last business day; it can send you a letter informing you of its decision and then send out the documents within a reasonable time afterward….

Under the ATIA, a component may extend the response time for an additional ten business days when: (1) the component needs to collect responsive records from field offices; (2) the request involves a "voluminous" amount of records which must be located, compiled, and reviewed; or (3) the component must consult with another agency which has a substantial interest in the responsive material or among two or more other components of the Justice

Department. When such a time extension is needed, the component may notify the requestor of this in writing and offer requester the opportunity to modify or limit their request. Alternatively, requestor may agree to a different timetable for the processing of their request.

When a determination on the request is not made within the deadline described above and requestor has not agreed to a different response deadline, the requestor may file suit in federal court to obtain a response. If, however, the court concludes that the requestor has unreasonably refused to limit his or her request or to accept an alternate timetable for response, the court may find that the component's failure to comply within the statutory time period is justified. The court also may approve a delay if it concludes that the component is experiencing an unexpected, substantial increase in the number of requests received. In addition, the court may excuse the lack of a timely response if the component demonstrates that it has a backlog of requests that were received before complaining requestor's, that it processes its requests on a first-come/first-served basis, and that it is making reasonable progress in reducing its backlog. In such cases, the court may postpone its consideration of the complaining requestor's lawsuit until the agency reaches complaining requestor's request in its processing backlog. (emphasis added)

VI. Expedited Processing

Under certain conditions, a requestor may be entitled to his or her request processed on an expedited basis. However, requestor should realize that whenever a ATIA request is expedited for a particular requester, it results in an additional delay for previous requesters who have been waiting for a response. Therefore, in an effort to treat all requesters equitably, the Justice Department ordinarily will process a ATIA request ahead of others only in cases in which there will be a threat to someone's life or physical safety, or where an individual will suffer the loss of substantial due process rights if the records are not processed on an expedited bases. In most cases, a request will not be expedited simply because the requester is facing a court deadline in some judicial proceeding. Ordinary discovery rights are usually sufficient to protect the requester's due process rights. However, in administrative proceedings that do not include such procedures for obtaining access to necessary information, expedited access may be granted when time is of the essence.

The ATIA also requires that requests be processed on an expedited basis if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public and the information is urgently needed to inform the public concerning some actual or alleged government activity. Requests are not expedited under this provision merely because the requester is a representative of the news media. Similarly, the Justice Department also expedites requests when the subject is of widespread and exceptional media interest and the information sought involves possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence. (emphasis added)

Extract from United States Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2000 edition, "Procedural Requirements."

Request For Expedited Processing

"A ATIA request may receive 'expedited' treatment and be processed out of sequence if the requester can show an 'exceptional need or urgency.' Courts have granted expedited access when exceptional circumstances surrounding a request, such as jeopardy to life or personal safety or a threatened loss of substantial due process rights, warrant such treatment.

Furthermore, the Electronic ATIA amendments require agencies to promulgate regulations providing for expedited processing of requests if the requester demonstrates a "compelling need" (as defined by the amended statute), or in any other case the agency deems appropriate under its regulations. Under the amended statute, a requester can show "compelling need" in one of two ways: by establishing that his or her failure to obtain the records quickly "could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;" or, if the requester is a "person primarily engaged in disseminating information," by demonstrating that an "urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists. At their discretion, agencies may grant expedited treatment under additional circumstances as well."

A request for expedited processing must be accompanied by a statement setting forth the reasons why the request should be expedited. Requestor should certify that the reasons given are true and correct. The component will be required to notify requestor

of its decision about whether to grant expedited processing within no more than ten days after receiving requestor's letter. If the component denies the request for expedited processing, requestor will be advised of his or her right to submit an administrative appeal of that denial, which will be handled expeditiously. (emphasis added)

Source: Government Services Administration, Website, "Time Limits and Extensions." ⁽¹⁶⁰⁾

Multitrack Processing

"The General Services Administration (hereinafter GSA) and staff offices may establish three processing queues, based on whether the ATIA Officer has granted any requests for expedited status and on the difficulty and complexity of preparing a response. Within each queue, prepare responses on a "first in, first out" basis. Place expedited requests in one queue. Place simple responses that clearly do not require an extension of time in the second queue. Place more complex requests that may require an extension of time, for one of the following reasons:

• GSA must search for and collect the requested records from field offices other than the one processing the request;
  
  
• GSA has to search for, collect, and examine a large number of separate records covered by the request;
  
  
• GSA needs to consult with another agency that has a substantial interest in the request;
  
  
• Two or more components of GSA with a substantial interest in the request need to consult; or
  
  
• GSA needs to consult with a submitter of records."

1.3.2 Australia: Freedom of Information Act, 1982

Response Time: Section 15(5)(a) - The agency or minister must acknowledge as soon as practicable but no later than 14 days from the day on which the request was received. Also as per section 15 (5)(b) the Agency or Minister has 30 days from the day on which the request was received to notify the applicant on a decision regarding access to the document requested.

Transfer Time: Section 16 - The section does not give a transfer time limit.

Extension: Section 15(6)(a) - If the requirements concerning documents is likely to affect Commonwealth-State relations s. 26(A); documents relating to business affairs, etc s.27 or documents containing personal information s. 27(A), the initial response period can be extended by a further 30 days.

COMMENTARY: the Australian Law Reform Commission

In Open government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Australian Law Reform Commission dealt with applicable time limits for access to government information in detail: ⁽¹⁶¹⁾

· Time limits

7.10 Standard request. For the past nine years, the time limit for processing FOI requests has been 30 days. It has been suggested that recent advances in information technology and records management mean that it should now be easier for agencies to identify and retrieve information and that, consequently, the time limit for processing a request should be reduced. The Review agrees that it is reasonable to expect agencies to take advantage of technological developments to improve their FOI administration. However, it considers that it would be premature to reduce the 30 day period immediately because some agencies do not yet have the facilities to store all documents electronically. Instead, it recommends that in three years the time limit should be reduced to 14 days. In the meantime, the FOI Commissioner should ensure that agencies are aware of the planned reduction and adapt and improve their practices in readiness for it.

Recommendation 31: In three years the time limit for processing FOI requests should be reduced to 14 days.

7.11 Requests requiring consultation. Where an agency is required to consult with third parties before deciding whether to grant access to a document, the 30 day time limit is extended by a further 30 days. There may be special circumstances in which even this 60 day period is too short, for example, where consultation is required with people or organisations located overseas. DP 59 proposed that agencies should be able to seek approval from the FOI Commissioner to extend beyond the extra 30 days the time limit for complying with a request that requires consultation. Some submissions express reservations about the proposal, generally on the basis that such a power would sit oddly with an FOI

Commissioner who will not have determinative powers. Several submissions consider extensions should simply be negotiated by the agency and the applicant as the need arises. The Review no longer considers it appropriate for the FOI Commissioner to have a formal

role in this process, however, he or she should be available to provide advice or assistance to either party on this issue.

7.12 Penalties for failing to meet deadlines. Processing delays are one of the most common problems FOI applicants experience. Some asked whether agencies should be penalised for failing to process FOI requests within the statutory time limit. An example of

a possible penalty is losing the right to collect charges. Those who support the proposal consider the threat of penalties would give agencies a strong incentive to be more timely. Agencies, on the other hand, claim that deadlines are only broken out of necessity and that penalties would therefore do little to increase the speed with which requests are processed.

The threat of a penalty will not lead agencies all of a sudden to answer all FOI requests within the statutory time limits. If agencies do not always satisfy this requirement, it is because of a valid reason such as current workloads.

The Review does not consider it necessary to introduce penalties for breaching the FOI processing time limit. In many cases, an agency will be able to negotiate an extension with the applicant to the satisfaction of both parties. The Review encourages this practice. In addition, the FOI Commissioner will be able to bring considerable pressure to bear, both in individual cases and at a systemic level, on an agency that delays requests. Furthermore, breaching the statutory limit amounts to a deemed refusal of access for the purposes of an application for review by the AAT [Administrative Appeals Tribunal]. (emphasis added)

Transfer of requests

Section 16 of the Act makes provision for the transfer of FOI requests between agencies in various circumstances, including where the document is not in the possession of the agency to which the request was directed but is known to be in the possession of another agency. The section is technical and complex. The Review considers that the detail in s.16 is necessary to ensure that agencies only transfer requests where it is in the best interests of the applicant, that is, where another agency is genuinely in a better position to deal with the request. Nevertheless, the Review considers that there is scope for s. 16 to be re-written more clearly.

1.3.3 New Zealand: Official Information Act, 1982 and the Ombudsmen Act, 1975

Response Time: Section 13(1) - The initial local authority or the local authority to whom the request is transferred has 20 working days from the day on which the request was received to respond to the request.

Transfer Time: Section 12 - The principal administrative officer or the officer of the local authority shall promptly and in no case later than 10 working days after the day on which the request was received transfer the request to an appropriate local authority, Department, Minister of the Crown, or organisation.

Extension: Section 14 - The time limit set out in sections 12 or 13(1) may be extended for a "reasonable period of time having regard for the circumstances." (emphasis added)

COMMENTARY: the New Zealand Law Commission

In October, 1997, the New Zealand Law Commission issued Report 40, Review of the Official Information Act 1982 (Wellington, New Zealand), chapter 4, Time limits, pp. 59-69:

"153. Complaints to the Ombudsmen about non-compliance with the time limits are numerous. The annual reports of the Ombudsmen over the last 3 years show that "delays/deemed refusals" are easily the second largest category of complaints after refusals.

154. As originally enacted, the Act contained no specific time limits. It simply required actions to be taken "promptly" and "as soon as reasonably practicable". From the outset the Ombudsmen commented that delay could undermine the effect of the Act. Growing concern about delays, both at the initial stage and at the stage of complaint to the Ombudsmen, led in 1987 to the introduction of the time limit and extension provisions.

• "As soon as reasonably practicable"

155. The basic obligation upon agencies to make decisions on requests as soon as reasonably practicable reflects the concern of the Danks Committee, the Ombudsmen, Parliamentarians and others that a specific time limit might come to be seen as the norm. For many public sector agencies this seems to have become so, as the Ombudsmen pointed out in 1995:

- There is a common misconception among public sector agencies that 20 working days is the norm within which to respond to a request for official information irrespective of the circumstances of the request and any urgency sought by the requester. That view is wrong under the Act. The essential obligation is to respond "as soon as reasonably practicable". The 20 working-day time limit (subject to extension in certain defined circumstances under s 15A [s.14]) sets a statutory maximum on the period of time that can reasonably be said to be "as soon as reasonably practicable" in each case. (original emphasis)

• Urgent Requests

159.The use of standard time limits can draw attention away from the appropriate response to urgent cases. Section 12(3) enables a requester to specify urgency in a request and the reasons for the urgency. The complaint provisions confirm that the intervention of the Ombudsmen might be sought well before 20 working days have expired: s 28(5). The Act gives agencies no express guidance, however, on how to take urgency into account.

162.The Ombudsmen have issued guidelines for responding to urgent requests. While these emphasise that each case must be assessed on its merits, relevant factors in determining what is reasonably practicable in the context of urgent requests are:

• the volume of information which must be considered;
• the nature of the information requested and how it is held;
• what consultations are necessary before making a decision on the request;
• the specified reasons for urgency; and
• whether according priority to an urgent request would unreasonably interfere with the agency's operations. (emphasis added)
• The 20 Working-Day Limit

163.There is some suggestion that the 20 working-day time limit for responding to requests is now generally too short, in the light of the increased workloads experienced by many agencies. The time limits are alleged to distort work flows by requiring agencies to give priority to requests over other work which they see as having greater priority. Should the limits be relaxed, and the statutory criteria changed to take better account of work flows?

164. The Commission is also mindful, on the other hand, of frustration among requesters over the time taken by agencies to process requests. It acknowledges criticisms that some agencies cynically use the 20 working-day rule, extension and transfer provisions, and finally recourse to the Ombudsmen, to delay the release of information until it is of no or little use to the requester.108 As much as ever, information is "a perishable commodity": stale information is often useless to the requester. Submissions to the Law Commission from user groups framed the issue in terms of reducing time limits. (emphasis added)

167. While there are significant delays in responding to official information requests, there are competing arguments whether reducing time limits will improve matters. Underlying non-compliance with time limits are both the ability and willingness of agencies to handle requests more quickly. There are numerous factors which affect the ability to respond to a request quickly, including an agency's staff and other resources; familiarity with the matters which form the subject of the request; information technology and document management systems; competing work priorities; and, in the case of some agencies, the large number of other official information requests to be processed. Willingness to process requests promptly, on the other hand, relates more to the organisational culture of the relevant agency, knowledge and under-standing of the Act, and whether the purposes of the Act are endorsed, particularly by senior management. Reducing time limits will not necessarily change these factors. (emphasis added)

173. The Commission recommended that the government review the 20 working-day time limit under s 15(1) in 3 years, with a view to reducing it to 15 working days. This would recognise that much information is now, or should be, more readily retrievable than when the 20 working-day limit was set, because of developments in information technology and information management. In the meantime, the government should adopt a 3-year strategy aimed at improving the ability of all agencies, through information technology and better information management, to respond to requests under the Act. (emphasis added)

• Extension of the Time Limit

174. Not all requests can be answered in the prescribed period. A power of extension will be required for some large or difficult requests. How legislation expresses such a power presents several questions:

• Who should exercise it in the first instance?
• On what grounds should it be exercisable?
• Should the power be capable of being exercised more than once?
• Should there be an outer time limit on it?
• What provision should there be for review?

175.The Commission considers that the answers to the first and last questions should be as at present. That is to say, the agency which is handling the request should make the decision and give notice to the requester of the extension, the reasons for it, and the right to complain to an Ombudsman: s 15A(4). The Ombudsmen should also continue to handle complaints about extensions under s 28(2).

• Multiple extensions

176.The generally, but not unanimously, accepted interpretation of s 15A is that the time for response can be extended only once - that action must be taken within 20 working days of receipt of the request: s 15A(3). The Commission agrees that the power should be limited in that way. The point has been made that something unforeseen might arise in the course of the extension requiring a further extension. But there is no evidence of this being a problem in practice. The Commission did not therefore propose any change to allow multiple extensions of the time limit for responding to requests.

• Grounds for extension

178.The extension is to be for a "reasonable period of time having regard to the circumstances": s 15A(2). The importance of the reference to consultation is emphasised by the discussion of that process in the Release of Official Information: Guidelines for Co- ordination issued by the State Services Commission. The guidelines stress the importance of a consistent and considered government response where requests relate to more than one department. One element in the guidelines relevant to the timing of a response is the suggested minimum of one week's notice of the department's intention to release notwithstanding the contrary opinion of those affected. (para. 178)

183. [The Commission recommended] that complexity of the issues raised by the request should be added to the grounds for an extension of time under s. 15A(1).

• Transfer of Requests

185. …. [The Commission did] not propose any change to the time limit in s 14, but we do emphasise once again the importance of promptly considering all requests, not least so as to ensure that any transfer of the request can be made within time.

189. The Law Commission recommends that:

- a decision to transfer a request under s 14, and failure to comply with the time limit in that section, should become grounds for complaint to the Ombudsmen under s 28(2) of the Act; and

- the words "or transferred" should be added after the word "refused" in s 30(1)(a) of the Act.

1.3.4 Ireland: Freedom of Information Act, 1997

Response Time: Section 7(2) - The head must respond within 2 weeks of receipt of initial request. Within 4 weeks of receipt of initial request the decision

as to whether access will be granted or not, in whole or in part, must be taken as per s. 8(1). If consultation is required with third parties under section 29(2), the third party must be notified within 2 weeks of receipt of the request. The third party has 3 weeks to respond. Then the head must decide on access within 7 weeks of the initial receipt date of the request.

Transfer Time: Section 7(3) - Any transfer must take place within the initial 2 weeks of receipt of the request.

Extension: Section 9(1) - The time limit may be extended for a maximum of 4 weeks in specific circumstances:

- where the request relates to such a number of records that compliance with the standard 4 week time period is not reasonably possible

- where the number of other FOI requests relating to the particular record(s) sought or to information corresponding to that to which the request relates, are such that compliance with the standard 4 week time period is not reasonably possible.

The requester must be notified of the period of the fact of the extension and the period of the extension before the expiry of the initial 4 week period. The period of extension must not exceed 4 weeks. (emphasis added)

1.3.5 United Kingdom: Freedom of Information Act, 2000

Response Time: Section 10(1) - Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with the section 1(1) duty to respond to a request for

information promptly and in any event not later than 20 working days following the date of receipt.

Transfer Time: Section 15 - Where the appropriate records authority receives a request for information which relates to information which is, or if it existed would be, contained in a transferred public record, that authority shall promptly, send a copy of the request to the responsible authority.

COMMENTARY (United Kingdom):

(From Explanatory Notes to Freedom of Information Act 2000)

In general, public authorities will have to respond to requests within 20 working days. They may charge a fee, which will have to be calculated according to Fees Regulations. If a fee is required, the 20 working days will be extended by up to 3 months until the fee is paid. In cases where information is covered by an exemption, but the authority is then required to

consider the public interest in releasing it, the authority must provide the information within a reasonable time. (summary of para. 52)

Section 10 states that an authority must comply with its duty under section 1 promptly and in any event within 20 working days (or other period, not later than 60 working days, set under regulations) from receipt of a request. If a fees notice is issued, time stops running from the issue of the notice until the fee is received. Where an authority is not able to reach a decision as to the balance of the public interest in disclosure within 20 working days, it must reach a decision within a reasonable period. In these circumstances, the authority is still required to issue a notice that an exemption applies under the provisions of section 17(1) within the 20 working day limit. (para. 52)

Appendix 2

Return to Table of Contents

¹⁴⁷ Canada, Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents (Ottawa, June, 1977), p. 21.

¹⁴⁸ Although I was one of two outside consultants to this review committee and participated actively in drafting the final report, my primary responsibilities were for privacy issues.

¹⁴⁹ While the Standing Committee was here attempting to force response times to work, I now realize that it failed to appreciate the problem of unclear access requests that need to be refined, an issue discussed further below.

¹⁵⁰ Canada, Access and Privacy: The Steps Ahead (Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa, 1987), p. 36.

¹⁵¹ Canada, Access and Privacy: The Steps Ahead, p. 36.

¹⁵² Available from www.gov.on.ca, Freedom of Information, Annotations, s. 26.

¹⁵³ Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Annual Report 1999.

¹⁵⁴ Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Annual Report 1999.

¹⁵⁵ Available from www.legis.gov.bc.ca/CMT?ATI/1999/review_act.htm

¹⁵⁶ Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Annual Report 2000 (Victoria, BC, 2001), p. 8.

¹⁵⁷ Available from www.gov.ab.ca/ATIp/other_resources/archive/final_report/

¹⁵⁸ Ombudsman Manitoba, Access and Privacy. 1999 Annual Report (December 2000), p.11.

¹⁵⁹ Available from www.usdoj.gov/orATIa/referenceguidemay99.htm The excerpts used here were edited to depersonalize them.

 ¹⁶⁰ Availabe from: hydra.gsa.gov/staff/c/ca/ATIA/ATIAProc/time.html1#Multitrack processing….

¹⁶¹ Available from www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/77/ALRC77Ch7.html