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.



Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Part A: Requests carried over from the prior fiscal year (2008-2009)

1. Number of requests carried over: 4
2. Requests carried over from the prior fiscal year— in a deemed-refusal situation on the first day of the new fiscal year 0

Part B: New Requests received in fiscal year 2009-2010— Exclude requests included in Part A

3. Number of requests received during the fiscal period 108
4.A How many were completed during fiscal year 2009-2010withinthe statutory 30-day time limit? 94
4.B How many were completed during fiscal year 2009-2010 beyond the statutory 30-day time limitwhere no extension was claimed ? 0
4.C How long after the expiry of the statutory 30-day timelimit did it take to complete the requestwhere no extension was claimed ?  
  1-30 days: 0
  31-60 days: 0
  61-90 days: 0
  Over 91 days: 0
5. How many were extended pursuant to section 9? 13
6.A How many were completed during fiscal year 2009-2010withinthe extended time limit? 13
6.B How many were completed during fiscal year 2009-2010 after exceeding the extended time limit? 0
6.C How long after the expiry of the extended deadline did it take to respond?  
  1-30 days: 0
  31-60 days: 0
  61-90 days: 0
  Over 91 days: 0
7. Number of requests received in 2009-2010 that were carried over to 2010-2011? 1
8. As of April 1 st , 2010, how many requests which were received in 2009-2010 are in a deemed-refusal situation? 0

Part C: Workload

9. What is the number of pages reviewed for requests completed in 2009-2010? 12,521
10. What is the number of consultations requests received in 2009-2010? 35

Part D: Contributing Factors


Please describe the most significant issues that affected your institution’s ability to respond to access to information requests in a timely manner (within 30 days and/or statutory timelines) since becoming subject to the Act. These may include:

  • Requests for large volume of records
  • Approval process of access requests
  • Difficulties to retrieve records (OPIs turnaround time)
  • Staff shortages
  • Requests filed in bulk
  • Consultations with other institutions
  • Others
AECL situation when they became subject to the ATI Act on September 1, 2007.
  • There was no ATIP office established when initial ATI requests were received in September (approximately 50 ATI requests). The ATIP requests were being delayed in the receiving/shipping area. Instructions were given to the employees to send the ATI requests to the Compliance unit. A consultant was hired to process the requests.
  • There was no ATIP retrieval/approval process established and there was no ATIP software in place to register all actions that pertained to ATIP requests.
  • AECL employees including Senior Managers were unaware of their responsibilities in meeting their obligations in responding to ATIP requests.
  • An experienced ATIP director was hired on January 27, 2008. Afterwards, he hired a Junior Analyst in March 2008 and an experienced Senior Analyst in May 2008.
  • The reporting relationship of the ATIP office was transferred from the Communications area to the Compliance area.

Please describe any practices or policies developed/undertaken by your institution to improve the timely delivery of your access to information program since becoming subject to the Act and where possible, indicate how successful these practices/policies have been. These may include:

  • Informal treatment of requests
  • Streamlined approval process
  • Partial release of records
  • Fast track process for common requests
  • Others
The following actions were developed and taken to respond to our obligations toward the legislation:
  • The delegation authority was approved by the President. The ATIP Director is the individual who has full authority.
  • The retrieval and review process was established and approved in February 2008. As well, a presentation on the retrieval and the review was given to the Board and the Executive Management Committee.
  • The partial release of documents is also encouraged and practiced by the ATIP office as well as releasing documents informally. Actually, we are in the process in having the disclosure policy approved by the Executive Management Committee.
  • Through internal ATIP office initiatives, a network of business unit liaison officers, with senior management support, was established to facilitate the retrieval of documents and review process when responding to ATI requests. As well, in time, the office of Compliance and Communications were removed from the review process. Only when required, the Coordinator will involve the above offices for review.
  • A legal opinion was provided to the ATIP office on s. 68.2. This is the carve-out exclusion that AECL can exercise on its documents.
  • Clarification with requestors required 95% of the time to establish exactly what they are requesting and who from, Sr. VP and above.

Part E: Building Capacity

As a newly-subject institution to the Act, please describe the implementation process and measures to build your institution’s capacity to respond to access to information requests. This may include resource allocation, infrastructure, internal support, and/or foundational work such as policy or planning documents.
  • AECL ATIP Website established
  • ATIP Case management software procured and operational by Dec 2008.
  • ATIP Request backlog from 2007/08 completed and case management software data inputting fully up to date by April 2009, (2009/10 fy)
  • ATIP Awareness Sessions provided to Board of Directors, Extended senior management committee, various individual senior managers and business unit liaison officers to ensure that all involved are aware of their responsibilities in regards to the legislation. ATIP Office currently focusing on employee awareness sessions when and where feasible to do so. With restructuring in progress, focus recently has been to employees at the Chalk River and Whiteshell facilities.
  • ATI, Privacy and disclosure policies in place by December 2009

Part F: Completion Time

What is the average completion time for all requests completed in 2009-2010?
3672 days divided by 111 completed requests= 33.081 days average per request.

Part G: Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act

15. Please attach your institution’s completed Report on the Access to Information(Form TBS/SCT 350-62) for 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. For institutions on a fiscal year other than April 1 st -March 31 st , include any supplemental reports where available.