Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Questionnaires

Year


2007-2008

QUESTIONNAIRES

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Report Card Questionnaire

2007-2008

June 27, 2008


A. ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUESTS PROCESS

1. Profile of Requester

Source Number of requests
Media 21
Academia 18
Business 40
Organization 9
Public 410
Other n/a
Total 498

2. Request Categorization

2.1 – Are requests categorized in any manner (i.e., sensitive, routine, etc.)?

Yes   No X

If yes, please list and define the categories and if possible indicate the number of access requests in each category.

Category Definition of Category Number of requests
2007-2008
     
     
     
     
     
     

2.2– If yes, who makes the determination of the category?

N/A – see section 2.1

2.3– If yes, is there a specific process related to this categorization? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

N/A – see section 2.1

3. Client Service

3.1 – On average, how much time does it take your institution to make a final decision on an ATI request under theAct? i.e. What is the total amount of time taken between the receipt of the ATI request and the final decision on disclosure of requested information?

The system is not configured to generate such information automatically. From the time that a request is created until it is closed, the system does capture the time taken to process and the time allowed (which factors stop clocks, extensions etc.). LAC on average processes each Formal Access request within 68 working days (taken) while allowed an average of 90 working days. Additional information provided to the OIC on July 2nd, 2008:  'Formal Access' is a request category used at LAC within the ATIPFlow system. Request for access to information made formally to a federal government department/agency by submitting the Access to Information Request Form, Personal Information Request Form or a signed letter stating the request is being made under the Access to Information Act or Privacy Act. Requests for archival information are processed by Library and Archives Canada either as formal requests under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, or as informal, archival research requests. A request is treated formally when it is made explicitly pursuant to either Act. Requests for current operational records are processed by Library and Archives Canada either as formal under the Access to Information or the Privacy Act or as informal in the “spirit” of this legislation. The Division treats a request formally when it is made explicitly pursuant to either Act. Requests for personnel information are processed by Library and Archives Canada either as formal requests under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, or as informal, personnel research requests. A request is treated formally when it is made explicitly pursuant to either Act. Personnel research requests are processed informally, in the “spirit” of the Access to Information and Privacy legislation. Days Taken is calculated from the day a request is completely received (received with all its relevant information in order to process) until the day it is closed. The system factors in days taken action items such as 'stop clocks' or 'extensions applied' which are action codes that when applied to a request will recalculate the working days on a request. Days Allowed is the number of days allowed by the system for each request depending on its type (formal Access, Formal Privacy, Informal Access, Informal Privacy etc.) in compliance with legislation. When extensions are applied to a request, the number of days allowed increases by the number of days selected for the extension request. Our answer to question 3.1 was to demonstrate that we were on average compliant in the delivery of those requests by taking 22 days less than allowed under the Access to Information Act .
 
3.2 – Disclosure to Requester   
Number of requests received during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008)498
Number of requests completed during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008)552 N.B. 498 requests were received during the last fiscal period (2007-2008); 119 requests were carried over the previous period
Pages reviewed335,731
Pages disclosed in total27,849
Pages disclosed in part128,508

Additional information provided to OIC on September 10, 2008:

Pages reviewed (2005-2006): 1,414,017

Pages reviewed (2006-2007): 156,648

3.3 – Disposition of Completed Requests for the PeriodNumber of requests
All disclosed114
Disclosed in partThe computer system cannot generate this data in percentage (%) and a manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. However, we were able to capture the total count of requests that have been disclosed in part293
Nothing disclosed (excluded)4
Nothing disclosed (exempt)3
No relevant record existsThis is not a disposition in accordance with TBS statistical requirements. Therefore, we do not capture this disposition in our ATIP system
Transferred20
Unable to process62
Abandoned by requester40
Treated informally16
Total completed552
Carried forward65

3.4 – Transfers Profile 
Transferred within 15 days20
Transferred after 15 days0
Total transferred20
Transfers refused0

3.5 – Consultations   
Received: 
Number of consultations received18
Number of pages to review1,135 pages reviewed (on 16 consultations completed during this reporting period)
(This question is to be answered by the Privy Council Office (PCO) only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to Cabinet confidences (Please, consult with PCO Legislation and House Planning) (s. 69)N/A
(This question is to be answered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15)N/A
(This question is to be answered by Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)N/A
For completed requests only, average time spent to review pages received for all consultations16 working days
Sent: 
Number of consultations sent205
Number of pages sent for review107,353
Number of consultations sent to PCO Legislation and House Planning related to Cabinet confidences (s. 69)3
Number of consultations sent to any institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15)175
Number of consultations sent to any institution related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)23
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to all consultations sent19 working days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to Cabinet confidences (s. 69)28 working days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to defence and national security (s. 15)45 working days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)17 working days

3.6 – Of the total number of access to information requests received during the reporting period, what percentage of these requests required your institution to consult (under paragraph 9(1)(b)) with other federal institutions)?

 Approximately 31.12% (155 extensions were taken under 9(1)(b) for 498 requests received during the reporting period).



3.7 – Does your institution have in place a policy, a practice or another instrument, such as a protocol (written or not, please specify), to address how consultations received from another institution or sent to another institution or to a third party, are processed?

YesXNo 

This is included in our Divisional Procedures manual.

3.8 – Priority: Are consultations processed on a priority basis?

YesXNo 

Priorities apply to both access requests received at LAC, as well as consultations received from other government departments/institutions (OGD). For consultations received by LAC from OGDs, we prioritize those requests that provide LAC with specific time frame to ensure that the institution can meet its legislated due date. We also prioritize requests received at LAC when a request is near to its statutory deadline, to avoid situations of deemed refusals. LAC also prioritizes requests when specific information on a request indicates urgency to process.

4. Time to Process Requests

4.1 Processing Model - Stages
Days AllocatedAverage Actual Days
Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) intake11
Call Access search (specific to LAC) Additional information obtained on July 2, 2008: An email that is generated from the ATIPflow pick list that is then forwarded to the Government Archives Business Centre’s (GABC’s) mailbox so that the email will be forwarded to the appropriate Government Records Branch for a search of the information requested in a formal access request.55
Records review1-112
Records preparation1-12The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. The fact that there are many action codes used by the system that fall under this category (i.e. Print consult, Print release, Scanning, Photocopy, Quality Control etc), it would be to labour intensive to manually capture this information.
Legaln/an/a
Communicationsn/an/a
Approval or otherwise – ATIPn/an/a
Approval or otherwise – OPIn/an/a
Approval or otherwise – DMOn/an/a
Approval or otherwise - MOn/an/a
ATIP release1The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. The release process is captured in the system using an action code that does not have automated calculation built in.

4.2 – Other than the stages identified in 4.1, does your institution have in place other approval or review processes for requests that are categorized in a special manner as in A.2 above? If yes, please list them.

N/A

Stage nameDays allocatedAverage actual days
   
   
   
   



4.3 – If other approval or review processes in place, for each stage, please explain in as much detail as possible the rationale for, and purpose of this additional approval or review stage.

N/A

4.4 – Please indicate whether this additional approval or review stage applies (1) to a specific type or category of requests, (2) systematically to all access requests or (3) on a case-by-case basis.

N/A

4.5 – Please indicate whether the roles and responsibilities of this approval or review stage are clearly established in a decision or a policy.

N/A

4.6 – In your opinion, has this other stage resulted in any increase in the delay to release the requested information?

Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

N/A

5. Extensions Profile

5.1 – When an extension is taken under section 9, do you document on the file a rationale to justify the decision to invoke an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

In ATIPflow we note under which part of section 9 we are taking the extension and since most of our extensions are required for consultation with other institutions, in the comments field of ATIPflow, we note the number of days quoted by the other institution as being required to review & return the consultation package to us.



5.2 – Following an extension, if it is unlikely that the extended date will be met, does the ATIP Office contact the requester to indicate:

a) The response will be late

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

b) Of an expected date for the final response

Always Almost alwaysXSometimes Rarely Never 

c) Of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

5.3 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer provided under 5.2 a), b) and c)

For 5.2(b) – if the expect date is known, it is provided to the requester; however, if the other institution cannot provide us with an expected, we obviously have no specific date to provide to the client.

5.4 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(a) – Large volume of records and Interference with the operations of the federal institution

Total of 312005-2006
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
3000010
For volume (search “through” large number of records) The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. There is not distinction between “for” and “through” built into the system.n/an/an/an/an/an/a

Total of 122006-2007
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
1101000
For volume (search “through” large number of records) The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. There is not distinction between “for” and “through” built into the system.n/an/an/an/an/an/a

Total of 122007-2008
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
840000
For volume (search “through” large number of records) The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. There is not distinction between “for” and “through” built into the system.n/an/an/an/an/an/a

5.5 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1) (a) (“large number of records”)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

If the number of pages to be reviewed is more than 1,000, we take a 30 day extension.

5.6 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(a) (large number of records) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Not really since we ensure that these types of requests are completed on time. During 2007-2008, LAC was not late on any requests involving this type of extension.

5.7 – Extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) – Consultations

Total of 332005-2006
Number of days
 < 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
For consultation with another federal institution9173040
For consultation with foreign government The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. Domestic, foreign, aboriginal or any OGD are captured in the system by aresponsibility contact listand the reporting capability of the system does not allow for this to be generated other than manually.n/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with domestic government See above n/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with aboriginal government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with individual See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation for section 69 See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a

Total of 1422006-2007
Number of days
 < 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
For consultation with another federal institution72896290
For consultation with foreign government The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. Domestic, foreign, aboriginal or any OGD are captured in the system by aresponsibility contact listand the reporting capability of the system does not allow for this to be generated other than manually.n/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with domestic government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with aboriginal government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with individual See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation for section 69 See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a

Total of 1582007-2008
Number of days
 < 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
For consultation with another federal institution The computer system cannot generate this data and manual revision of the files would significantly interfere with our current activities. Domestic, foreign, aboriginal or any OGD are captured in the system by aresponsibility contact listand the reporting capability of the system does not allow for this to be generated other than manually.63317191271
For consultation with foreign government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with domestic government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with aboriginal government See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation with individual See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a
For consultation for section 69 See aboven/an/an/an/an/an/a

5.8 – If consultations are taken under paragraph 9(1) (b),are these sent out as soon as the need has been identified?

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

5.9 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

N/A

5.10 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1) (b) (consultations)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

We contact the other government institution and discuss the length of time that they require to review the material. This involves providing them with an estimate on the number of pages that will be sent to them.

5.11 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1) (b) (consultations) are taken, are there any circumstances where for certain consultations, a certain amount of time is always taken by the federal institution to which the consultation is sent? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

N/A - see answer in 5.10

5.12 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

As we are getting close to the end of the extension, the Analyst will follow-up with the other institution to determine if they are still on target for returning the material to us. If their answer is no, then the Section Manager or Director will call their counter-part to help facilitate the return of the material on time.

5.13 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(c) – Notices to third parties



 2005-2006
Number of requests where third party was consulted3
 Length of extension taken
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
120000
Average length of time to receive representations from third parties16
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third parties8
Number of notices under section 276
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met0
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met0



 2006-2007
Number of requests where third party was consulted2
 Length of extension taken
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
020000
Average length of time to receive representations from third parties11
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third parties1
Number of notices under section 273
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met0
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met0

 2007-2008
Number of requests where third party consulted0
 Length of extension taken
< 3030-9091-120121-150151-180>180
000000
Average length of time to receive representations from third partiesn/a
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third partiesn/a
Number of notices under section 27n/a
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not metn/a
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not metn/a



5.14 – Are third party notices sentto third parties pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c) and subsection 27(1) sent out before thirty days have lapsed?

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

5.15 – If you have not checked “Always”, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

N/A

5.16 –Are notices sent assoon as the need for the notice is identified?

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

5.17 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

N/A

5.18 – When an extension is invoked under paragraph 9(1) (c) for third party notification, how often does the institution meet the statutory timelines? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

AlwaysXAlmost always Sometimes Rarely Never 

N/A given that we rarely use this type of extension and when we use it, we ensure that we are on time.

5.19– When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c) (notices to third party) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that the federal institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Not really. We treat them as we would for any other consultation.

5.20 – When extensions are taken under paragraphs 9(1)(b) and / or 9(1)(c) – consultations – does the ATIP Office provide a partial release of the requested records for portions of the request that are not involved in the consultation process?

Always Almost alwaysXSometimes Rarely Never 

5.21 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Whenever possible we provide a partial release; however, if the Analyst believes that the material not sent on consultation could be affected by the recommendations received during the consultation process, we might hold back on making a partial release. Additional information provided on July 2nd, 2008: If a LAC analyst believes that the information being consulted does not have any impact of the remainder of the information concerning a particular request, then we would partially release the information, however, if the analyst has questions about material currently on consult, then the remainder of the information would be withheld until the balance of the material is received and reviewed in our office. Our experience is that generally it is safer to wait until the full consult comes back because there are often discrepancies in the information received from consult.

6. Claims for discretionary exemptions 

6.1 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

YesNo
X 

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

If we are processing an operational request for LAC’s own records, the rationale generally originates from our OPI’s. If we are processing a request for archival records which originated from another institution, generally the rationale comes from the institution consulted.

6.2 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

YesNo
X 

Please provide any relevant information for this question.


6.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a discretionary exemption?

YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

Rationales are provided according to our answer in section 6.1; however, this is not a “documented requirement”.

6.4 – Is the discretionary exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and/or the ATIP Office?

YesNo
X 

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

See 6.1.

6.5 – Is there a documented discretionary exemption challenge function in ATIP Office if the rationale is prepared by OPIs?

YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

We do challenge their rationale if we do not agree with it; however, there is no “documented discretionary exemption challenge function”.


7. Claims for mandatory exemptions

7.1 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

Generally not since most of our mandatory exemptions involve section 19 (personal information). Since LAC can use section 8(3) of the Privacy Act, the process of documenting the rationale for every decision made involving personal information would greatly interfere with our day-to-day operations and jeopardize our ability to respond to our clients on time.

7.2 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

YesNo
X 

Please provide any relevant information for this question.


7.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a mandatory exemption?

YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

See answer to 7.1

7.4 – Is the mandatory exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and / or the ATIP Office?

YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

See answer to 7.1



YesNo
 X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

We do challenge their rationale if we do not agree with it; however, there is no “documented discretionary exemption challenge function”.
 

B. DEEMED-REFUSAL REQUESTS

Part I: Requests carried over from the 2006-2007 fiscal period.
1.Number of requests carried over:119
2.Requests carried over from the previous fiscal period — in a deemed-refusal situation on the first day of the new fiscal period:6
Part II: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part I.
3.Number of requests received during the 2007-2008 fiscal period:498
4.AHow many were processed within the statutory 30-day time limit?358
4.BHow many were processed beyond the statutory 30-day time limitwhere no extension was claimed?5
5.How many were extended pursuant to section 9?118
5.AHow many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a)?12
5.BHow many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(b)?110
5.CHow many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c)?0
6.AHow many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5)69
6.BHow many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5)1
7.AHow many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A)12
7.BHow many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A)0
8.AHow many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B)110
8.BHow many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B)0
9.AHow many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C)0
9.BHow many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C)0
Part II: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part I.
10As of March 31, 2008, how many requests were in a deemed-refusal situation?1


C. RESOURCE PROFILE

1. Employee Profile

Please list all ATIP Office employees.

Full-time PositionClassificationNumberYears of Experience
Director (50 %)EX-01117
Section Manager (2 at 30 %, 1 at 90 %)PM-0535 - 20
Section Manager (30 %)AS-0412
Administrative Assistant (0 %)AS-0113
Clerks (50 %)CR-04121 - 3
Senior Analyst (2 at 30 %, 7 at 90 %)PM-0491 - 20
Personnel Records Analyst (30 %)PM-03161 - 20
Personnel Records Officer (0 %)PM-0112
Part-time PositionClassificationNumberYears of Experience
N/A   
Consultants Hired to process ATI requestsClassification  
N/A   

2. Salary Dollar Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal YearBudget AllocatedBudget UsedFTEs AllocatedFTEs Used
2007-2008$1,226,629.37$1,226,629.372222
2006-2007$763,338.16$763,338.1612.8912.89
2005-2006$1,011,024.11$1,011,024.1119.2019.20

3. Operating Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal YearBudget AllocatedBudget Used
2007/2008$203,790.38$203,790.38
2006/2007$197,774.33$197,774.33
2005/2006$252,448.85$252,448.85

4. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Training or Training Materials

Fiscal YearATI Staff TrainingDepartmental ATI Training
2007/2008$12,857.00$10,968.05
2006/2007$10,439.90$11,034.91
2005/2006$0.00$8,473.00

5. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Consultants

Fiscal YearBudget AllocatedBudget Used
2007/2008$17,400.00$17,400.00
2006/2007$5,775.00$5,775.00
2005/2006$0.00$74,670.00


D. LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK

1. – Is the ATIP Coordinator responsible exclusively for the administration of the ATIP Office?

Yes NoX

2. – If No, please list other responsibilities of the ATIP Coordinator.

The ATIP Coordinator is the Director of the ATIP & Personnel Records Division which processes both formal and informal requests for LAC’s operational records and LAC’s archival records as well as the military and civilian personnel files under LAC’S control and custody.

3. – When requests processing stages, other than those listed in section A.4 of this questionnaire, are in place, who has the designated authority to make decisions on the disclosure or refusal to disclose information under theAccess to Information Act(s. 73)?

This question does not seem to apply to LAC since all ATIP Analysts have delegated authority “to make decisions on the disclosure or refusal to disclose information” on their own and there is no formal approval process. The delegated authority has also been given to the ATIP & PR Divisional Section Managers, the ATIP & PR Director, the ADM Programs and Services Sector and the Librarian and Archivist of Canada.

E. SPECIFICS FOR 2007-2008

In this section, the institution is asked to provide details relating to the information provided in response to the questionnaire:

1. – Please describe the most significant issues that affected your institution's ability to (i) respond to access to information requests as quickly as possible and/or (ii) provide requesters with as much of the information requested as possible.

Forty-four requests were received from the same requester which required mandatory consultation with CSIS. The same client then complained concerning the extensions that were required for consultation. Two experienced analysts were off on off on maternity leave which required extensive training for their replacements. Budget limitations resulted in us being unable to staff several vacant positions.

2. – For the issues identified in the response to Q. 1 above, were they foreseeable? Please explain.

We have no control over the timing or quantity of inquiries submitted by any client nor their right to submit complaints. Regardless of whether the budget distribution was foreseeable or not, the end result is that vacant positions cannot be staffed since we must manage within our allotted budget.

F. BEST PRACTICES 

3. – Please describe any best practices developed / undertaken by your institution to improve your delivery of the access to information program. If possible, please indicate how successful these practices have been.

G. COMPLAINT PROFILE

Data supplied by the Office of the Information Commissioner on complaints made to its Office and the resolution of those complaints.

See Individual Report Card.

Date modified: