Canada’s access to information system

The Access to Information Act

• The Access to Information Act provides a right of access to records under the control of government institutions, such as departments, agencies and Crown corporations. While Part 1 of the Act provides for access rights, Part 2 relates to proactive disclosure requirements and applies to:
  • federal government institutions;
  • ministers;
  • Senate, House of Commons and Parliamentary Entities;
  • administrative institutions that support superior courts.
• The Act came into force in 1983. Key amendments were made in 2019, including order-making powers for the Information Commissioner.
• While heads of institutions are responsible for complying with the Act, the overall administration of the Act, including the policies and tools supporting it, falls under the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Review of the Act

• As required by section 93 of the Act, a legislative review was launched in 2020 but did not result in any amendments. In June 2025, the President of the Treasury Board initiated a new review.
• Section 99.1 of the Act provides for a review of the Act by a parliamentary committee.

Exemptions and exclusions

• The Act provides that the general right of access to records may be restricted when necessary by limited and specific exceptions.
  • Exemptions apply to the information contained within a record and not necessarily to the entire record.
  • Sections 13 to 24 cover exemptions, while sections 68 to 69.1 refer to exclusions. Exemptions and exclusions protect certain types of information, such as Cabinet confidences, personal information, national security matters, third party information and records related to investigations.

Making an access request to federal government institutions

• The right of access applies to Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and individuals and corporations present in Canada.
• The request must be made in writing to the institution that has control of the record and provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution to identify the record with a reasonable effort.
  • Institutions have 30 days to respond to an access request. Extensions of time are possible under specific circumstances, such as when consultations with other institutions are necessary.

At the provincial/territorial level

• All 10 provinces and 3 territories have their own freedom of information and privacy legislation. Each jurisdiction has a commissioner providing oversight of both access and privacy laws.
• At the federal level, the Information Commissioner oversees access to information, while the Privacy Commissioner is responsible for federal privacy legislations.

The Information Commissioner

• The Act entrusts the Information Commissioner with the first level of independent review of any matters relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under Part 1 of the Act. She has no jurisdiction over proactive disclosure under Part 2 of the Act.
• The Office of the Information Commissioner supports the Commissioner in her capacity as an independent Agent of Parliament.
• The Commissioner seeks to enforce the Act, using the full range of tools and powers at her disposal. These include negotiating with complainants and institutions and making orders and recommendations to resolve matters at the conclusion of investigations.
• The Commissioner receives thousands of complaints each year from requesters who believe institutions did not respect their rights under Part 1 of the Act.
  • Delay complaintsfocus on institutions’ lack of response to access requests within the deadlines set out in the Act.
  • Extension of time complaintsfocus on whether the extra time an institution decided to take to respond to a request is reasonable or was taken for legitimate reasons, or whether the institution followed the rules in the Act for claiming extensions.
  • Refusal complaintsconcern institutions’ application of exemptions and exclusions under the Act, the adequacy of their record searches, the application of fees, the provision of records in a particular official language, the provision of records in alternative formats, publications under section 5 of the Act, and other matters relating to requesting or obtaining access to records.
• Since the beginning of Commissioner Maynard’s first mandate in 2018, the OIC has reduced its inventory of complaints by 42% and concluded 6% more complaints than it accepted during this period.
• The Information Commissioner can publish final reports setting out the results of her investigations and outlining the reasons and principles behind her decisions. She also submits to Parliament an annual report of her office’s activities.

The Federal Court

• The Federal Court provides the second level of independent review.
  • The complainant, the institution, the third party or the Privacy Commissioner can apply to the Federal Court for a review.
• The Information Commissioner’s orders are legally binding, meaning that institutions must implement them unless they apply to the Federal Court for a review. Eleven institutions went to court for such a review.
• The Information Commissioner has had to resort to legal proceedings to enforce her orders. So far, she launched eight applications for a writ of mandamus in Federal Court to compel institutions to comply with her binding orders.
  • A writ of mandamus is a remedy asking a court to order a public authority to perform a legal duty.