2017-2018 Annual Report on the Administration of the Access to Information Act

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• About the OIC
  • Organizational structure in 2017–2018
• Access to information activities at the OIC
  • Secretariat
  • Information Commissioner ad hoc
• 2017–2018 statistics and trends
  • Workload
  • Timeliness
  • Disclosure
  • Exemptions claimed
  • Complaints
• Appendix A: Delegation orders in effect in 2017–2018
• Appendix B: Delegation order, Information Commissioner ad hoc
• Appendix C: 2017–2018 statistical report

Introduction

The purpose of the Access to Information Act is to protect the public’s right to access records under the control of government institutions, while ensuring that the use of exemptions and exclusions is limited and specific. The Act also specifies that any decisions on the disclosure of information should be reviewed independently of government. To this end, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) was established under the Act in 1983 as an independent oversight body reporting to Parliament.

2017–2018 highlights

• The OIC carried one request over into 2017–2018 from the previous year, received 51 new requests and completed 51 requests prior to year-end.
• 100 percent of requests were completed within statutory deadlines.
• The average time to complete a request was 18.1 days.

When the OIC became subject to the Access to Information Act on April 1, 2007, the organization committed to providing exemplary service to requesters seeking information about its investigations and operations.

The OIC has consistently lived up to that commitment, quickly responding to requests and disclosing a broad range of information. As a further service to requesters, the OIC stopped charging any fees for making access requests in 2010.

This report, prepared and tabled in accordance with section 72 of the Access to Information Act, reviews the OIC’s access to information activities for 2017–2018.

The OIC received 51 formal access requests in 2017–2018. This is a 40 percent decrease from the 85 requests received in 2016–2017. The organization achieved the average completion time of 18.1 days for the 51 files it completed over the course of 2017–2018.

About the OIC

The OIC is an independent public institution created in 1983 under the Access to Information Act. The OIC’s primary responsibility is to support the Information Commissioner of Canada’s mandate to conduct efficient, fair and confidential investigations into complaints about federal institutions’ handling of access to information requests. The OIC primarily uses mediation and persuasion to resolve complaints, but may bring cases to the Federal Court to ensure the Act is properly interpreted and applied.

The OIC also supports the Information Commissioner in her advisory role to Parliament and parliamentary committees on all matters pertaining to access to information. The OIC actively makes the case for greater freedom of information in Canada through targeted initiatives such as Right to Know Week and ongoing dialogue with Canadians, Parliament and federal institutions.

Organizational structure in 2017–2018

Text Version

This organizational chart shows the titles of the two senior officials at the Office of the Information Commissioner who report to the Information Commissioner: Deputy Commissioner, Investigations and Governance; and Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs.

Deputy Commissioner, Investigations and Governance, the OIC’s investigations group (Complaints Resolution and Compliance) mediates and investigates complaints about the processing of access to information requests and any issues related to requesting or obtaining access to records under the Act. Governance responsibilities are led by Corporate Services. This team provides strategic and corporate leadership for planning and reporting, human resources and financial management, security and administrative services, internal audit and evaluation, and information management and technology.

Under the Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs, the OIC’s Legal Services group provides legal advice on investigations and administrative and legislative matters, as well as training on recent case law. Legal Services also monitors legislative developments to determine their possible effect on the Commissioner’s work and access to information in general. Legal Services represents the Commissioner in court as she seeks to clarify points of access law and uphold information rights. The Public Affairs team conducts communications and external relations with a wide range of stakeholders, notably Parliament, governments and the media. Public Affairs also provides input to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat on improving the administration of the Act. Public Affairs is responsible for the OIC’s access to information and privacy function.

Access to information activities at the OIC

Secretariat

The OIC has a small team of specialists who carry out the organization’s access to information and privacy (ATIP) activities. In 2017–2018, the ATIP Secretariat comprised the ATIP Manager (full time) supported by ATIP Officer (full time).

Secretariat staff process requests, provide training on access and privacy matters to new staff, and develop and implement policies and procedures.

In 2017–2018, the ATIP Manager provided training for the ATIP Officer, and Secretariat staff provided advice to individual OIC employees and managers on access matters, upon request.

The ATIP Manager and the Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs, hold full delegated authority under the Act. Appendix A contains a copy of the delegation order, from both former Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, whose term ended on February 28, 2018, and current Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, whose term began on March 1, 2018.

Information Commissioner ad hoc

Requesters who are of the view that the OIC has improperly handled their access request are entitled to file a complaint. To prevent any conflict of interest and to ensure the integrity of the complaint process, the independent Information Commissioner ad hoc investigates complaints regarding access requests submitted to the OIC.

David Loukidelis was appointed as Information Commissioner ad hoc on May 4, 2015. The Information Commissioner ad hoc, who is assisted by an investigator, has the same powers and obligations as the Information Commissioner with respect to conducting investigations and making recommendations. Appendix B contains the delegation order that was in effect for Mr. Loukidelis in 2017–2018. Mr. Loukidelis completed his term in early 2018–2019 and has been replaced by Anne E. Bertrand.

2017–2018 statistics and trends

Appendix C contains the OIC’s statistical report on the Access to Information Act for 2017–2018. The following sets out some highlights from that report, along with notable trends related to workload, timeliness and disclosure over the years the OIC has been subject to the Act.

Workload highlights, 2017–2018

Workload

The OIC received 51 new requests in 2017–2018. This represents 34 fewer requests (40 percent) than the OIC received the previous year. There was one request carried over from 2016–2017, and one request was carried over to 2018–2019.

As Figure 1 shows, the annual volume of new requests has fluctuated in the 11 years the OIC as been subject to the Act. After an initial surge, the volume dropped and levelled off between 2009–2010 and 2013–2014, followed by noticeable increases in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. In the last two years, the number of new requests has dropped since that peak.

Figure 1: New requests, 2007–2008 to 2017–2018

Text Version

	Nombre de demandes
2007-2008	93
2008-2009	113
2009-2010	28
2010-2011	46
2011-2012	48
2012-2013	44
2013-2014	33
2014–2015	89
2015-2016	120
2016-2017	85
2017-2018	51

The greatest portion of the new requests in 2017–2018 were from members of the public (43 percent). Members of the media or businesses submitted nearly all the remaining requests. Receiving the majority of requests from the public is typical for the OIC, with the exception of the first two years the organization was subject to the Act when businesses were the source of most requests.

Examples of new access requests, 2017–2018

• Briefing materials prepared for the Information Commissioner
• Investigation files or documents related to investigations
• Information regarding Bill C-58 and other topics related to the reform of the Act
• Contracts for goods and services
• Call-ups for services against government standing offers and other contracting instruments The OIC’s website contains summaries of completed access requests.

In 2017–2018, the majority of requests the OIC received were for administrative records, such as correspondence, briefing notes and statistics. The OIC also received a handful of requests about specific investigations being undertaken by the Information Commissioner.

Figure 2: Number of pages processed, 2010–2011 to 2017–2018

Text Version

	Number of pages processed
2010–2011	7,206
2011–2012	25,187
2012–2013	27,083
2013–2014	25,782
2014–2015	36,457
2015–2016	43,327
2016–2017	17,460
2017–2018	12,295

In 2017–2018, the OIC processed 12,925 pages for the 51 requests it completed during the year (Figure 2). This is a 26-percent decrease from 2016–2017 and the lowest number of pages the OIC has processed over a year since 2010–2011.

At the same time, three requests (6 percent of the total) each involved processing more than 1,000 pages each, consistent with recent years. More than half of the requests completed in 2017–2018 required the processing of fewer than 100 pages.

The OIC received no informal requests in 2017–2018.

The final component of the OIC’s access request-related workload is consultations—that is, when other institutions seek the OIC’s input on requests they have received that touch on the OIC’s business or involve its records. Institutions generally ask for recommendations on whether any information should be exempted from release. The OIC’s general practice is to not provide recommendations on the application of exemptions in response to consultation requests. This is because the Information Commissioner could later be required to investigate complaints about the institution’s use of those provisions of the Act to withhold information. Not making recommendations allows the Information Commissioner to maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

The OIC nonetheless received 16 such requests in 2017–2018, up slightly from the year before and responded to them all in 15 days or less.

Timeliness

A hallmark of exemplary service to requesters is timeliness. Indeed, responding to access requests as promptly as possible underpins the entire access system.

Figure 3: Completion time for requests, 2017–2018

Text Version

1 to 15 days	37%
16 to 30 days	57%
31 to 60 days	6%

The Access to Information Act sets 30 days as the timeframe within which institutions should respond to requests. When institutions determine that they will be unable to complete a request in 30 days, they may take a time extension. In keeping with the principle of timeliness, the OIC strives to make these extensions as short as possible.

Of the 51 requests the OIC closed in 2017–2018, 94 percent were completed in less than 30 days (Figure 3)—57 percent in 16 to 30 days, and 37 percent in 15 days or less.

In 2017–2018, the OIC took three time extensions to respond to requests, all three for less than 30 days. Two of the extensions taken were for due to interference with operations, while the third extension was taken in order for the OIC to consult with other organisations.

The OIC completed all 51 requests it closed in 2016–2017 before their deadline (either 30 days or the extended date), such that the OIC had no “deemed refusals.”

Figure 4: Average completion time for requests, 2008–2009 to 2017–2018

Text Version

	Number of days
2008–2009	36.11
2009–2010	32.97
2010–2011	15
2011–2012	22
2012–2013	30.4
2013–2014	25.5
2014–2015	19
2015–2016	16.56
2016–2017	13.9
2017–2018	18.1

Another measure of timeliness is the average time it takes to complete a request.

The OIC’s average completion time for requests for 2016-2017 was 18.1 days. This is well below the 30-day time limit set out in the Act. As Figure 4 shows, in the last five years, the OIC has always achieved an average completion time of less than 30 days.

Disclosure

Text Box: Disposition of completed requests, 2017–2018 Disposition Number of requests (percentage of total) All disclosed 11 (22%) Disclosed in part 20 (39%) All exempted 5 (10%) No records exist 8 (16%) Request transferred 1 (2%) Request abandoned 6 (12%) Total 51 (100%)* *The percentages total slightly more than 100 due to rounding.

Disposition of completed requests, 2017–2018

*The percentages total slightly more than 100 due to rounding.

The purpose of the Access to Information Act is to protect the right to access records under the control of government institutions, while ensuring that the use of any exemptions and exclusions is limited and specific. In line with this purpose, the OIC seeks to release as much information as possible to requesters and withhold only what the law requires.

In 2017–2018, the OIC disclosed all the records in response to 11 requests (22 percent of the 51 files completed). These included requests for annual statistics, lists of briefing notes and routine procurement records.

The OIC released part of the information requested for 20 of 51 requests (39 percent). A number of these requests were related to investigations. The OIC may not release any investigation records before an investigation is complete and the complaint closed, and only some afterwards, as set out in section 16.1 of the Act. Figure 5 provides an 11-year trend.

Figure 5: Disclosure of records, 2007–2008 to 2017–2018

Text Version

	2007–2008	2008–2009	2009–2010	2010–2011	2011–2012	2012–2013	2013–2014	2014–2015	2015–2016	2016–2017	2017–2018
All disclosed	33%	25%	13%	20%	16%	6%	16%	16%	22%	29%	22%
Disclosed in part	46%	59%	74%	43%	48%	48%	45%	57%	54%	46%	39%

In 2017–2018, the OIC received eight new requests for which no records existed. This represents 16 percent of the total request volume, which is consistent with the proportion in the previous two years.

Exemptions claimed

The OIC claimed four different exemptions and one exclusion to sever information when responding to requests in 2017–2018 over the 20 requests for which the records were disclosed in part.

The OIC invoked paragraph 16.1(1)(c) of the Act, which specifically exempts records associated with investigations, in 18 of the 20 requests. This is a mandatory exemption.

With the exception of 2008–2009, paragraph 16.1(1)(c) has been either the OIC’s most or second-most used exemption. Sections 19 (personal information) and 23 (solicitor-client privilege) are among the other most commonly claimed exemption. The OIC invoked section 19 in six requests and section 23 in eight requests, in 2017–2018.

The Act also excludes certain information, such as Cabinet confidences (section 69). The only exclusion the OIC invoked in 2017–2018 was pursuant to this section of the Act.

Complaints

In 2017–2018, the Information Commissioner ad hoc received one complaint about the OIC’s handling of access requests. The Information Commissioner ad hoc investigated and found the complaint to be not well founded. The Information Commissioner ad hoc’s annual report can be found in the Information Commissioner’s 2017–2018 annual report.

Appendix A: Delegation orders in effect in 2017–2018

Appendix B: Delegation order, Information Commissioner ad hoc

Appendix C: 2017-2018 Statistical Report

Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act

Name of institution: Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Reporting period: 2017-04-01 to 2018-03-31

Part 1: Requests Under the Access to Information Act

1.1  Number of Requests

1.2  Sources of Requests

1.3  Informal Requests

Note: All Requests previously recorded as “treated informally” will now be accounted for in this section only.

Part 2: Requests Closed During the Reporting Period

2.1  Disposition and Completion Time

2.2  Exemptions

* I.A.:  International Affairs       Def.:  Defence of Canada       S.A.:  Subversive Activities

2.3  Exclusions

2.4  Format of Information Released

2.5  Complexity

2.5.1  Relevant pages processed and disclosed

2.5.2  Relevant pages processed and disclosed by size of requests

2.5.3  Other Complexities

2.6  Deemed Refusals

2.6.1  Reasons for not meeting statutory deadline

2.6.2  Number of days past deadline

2.7  Requests for Translation

Part 3: Extensions

3.1  Reasons for Extensions and Disposition of Requests

3.2 Length of Extensions

Part 4: Fees

Part 5: Consultations Received From Other Institutions and Organizations

5.1  Consultations Received From Other Government of Canada Institutions and Organizations

5.2  Recommendations and Completion Time for Consultations Received From Other Government of Canada Institutions

5.3  Recommendations and Completion Time for Consultations Received From Other Organizations

Part 6: Completion Time of Consultations on Cabinet Confidences

6.1  Requests with Legal Services

6.2 Requests with Privy Council Office

Part 7: Complaints and Investigations

Part 8: Court Action

Part 9: Resources Related to the Access to Information Act

9.1 Costs

9.2 Human Resources

Note: Enter values to two decimal places.