Privacy or Access to Information for Public Complaints (5:IV): Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Privacy or Access to Information for Public Complaints (5:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 23:05, 29 November 2022
, 29 November 2022→3. Access to Information Act
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
This Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents and any individual present or corporation in Canada the right to access any record under the control of a federal government institution. | This Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents and any individual present or corporation in Canada the right to access any record under the control of a federal government institution. | ||
'''NOTE:''' If you are seeking to obtain information about an individual person, see section IV.D.2 on the application of the ''Privacy Act''. | :'''NOTE:''' If you are seeking to obtain information about an individual person, see section IV.D.2 on the application of the ''Privacy Act''. | ||
Certain classes of information are exempt from the ''Act''. These include confidential inter-governmental communications, information pertaining to law enforcement and investigations, trade secrets, personal information, and generally anything likely to be harmful to Canada’s national security interest. | Certain classes of information are exempt from the ''Act''. These include confidential inter-governmental communications, information pertaining to law enforcement and investigations, trade secrets, personal information, and generally anything likely to be harmful to Canada’s national security interest. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
On June 21, 2019, an Act to amend the ''Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act'' received Royal Assent. Under the amended ''Act'', a federal institution may decline to act on a request to access to a record for various reasons if approved by the Information Commissioner. In addition to this change, the amended Act clarifies the power of the Information Commissioner regarding the authority to refuse or cease to investigate and to examine disclosure subjected to solicitor-client privilege or professional secrecy | On June 21, 2019, an Act to amend the ''Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act'' received Royal Assent. Under the amended ''Act'', a federal institution may decline to act on a request to access to a record for various reasons if approved by the Information Commissioner. In addition to this change, the amended Act clarifies the power of the Information Commissioner regarding the authority to refuse or cease to investigate and to examine disclosure subjected to solicitor-client privilege or professional secrecy | ||
'''NOTE:''' In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc23/2010scc23.html?autocompleteStr=Criminal%20Lawyers’%20Association%20v%20Ontario%20(Public%20Safety%20and%20Security)%2C%202010%20SCC%2023&autocompletePos=1 Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association]'', 2010 SCC 23, the Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the ''Charter'' does not guarantee access to all documents in government hands. In that case, the Court adopted the test for whether freedom of expression was infringed found in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html?resultIndex=1 Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General)]'', [1989] 1 SCR 927, and determined that freedom of expression was not infringed by the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSO 1990, c F.31. See both of these cases for more detailed information. | :'''NOTE:''' In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc23/2010scc23.html?autocompleteStr=Criminal%20Lawyers’%20Association%20v%20Ontario%20(Public%20Safety%20and%20Security)%2C%202010%20SCC%2023&autocompletePos=1 Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association]'', 2010 SCC 23, the Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the ''Charter'' does not guarantee access to all documents in government hands. In that case, the Court adopted the test for whether freedom of expression was infringed found in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html?resultIndex=1 Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General)]'', [1989] 1 SCR 927, and determined that freedom of expression was not infringed by the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSO 1990, c F.31. See both of these cases for more detailed information. | ||
The procedure for obtaining a government record is as follows: | The procedure for obtaining a government record is as follows: | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
*Formally request the records by sending in the online or printed request forms, or by sending a letter. These options are available under “Options for Submitting an ATIP Request”. Be as specific as possible citing subject, dates, events, and individuals. Enclose a $5.00 payment, but ask that this and any other fees be waived on the grounds that the release of records would be of “general public benefit” or that similar information has been released in the past. Note: Requests for information under the ''Privacy Act'' do not require a fee. | *Formally request the records by sending in the online or printed request forms, or by sending a letter. These options are available under “Options for Submitting an ATIP Request”. Be as specific as possible citing subject, dates, events, and individuals. Enclose a $5.00 payment, but ask that this and any other fees be waived on the grounds that the release of records would be of “general public benefit” or that similar information has been released in the past. Note: Requests for information under the ''Privacy Act'' do not require a fee. | ||
*Once the institution receives a request, it has 30 days to give notice of whether access will be given. Senior officials can extend this time limit if they give notice of extension. If third parties are involved, the time limit is 80 days. If access is refused, they must inform the person making the request of the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. | *Once the institution receives a request, it has 30 days to give notice of whether access will be given. Senior officials can extend this time limit if they give notice of extension. If third parties are involved, the time limit is 80 days. If access is refused, they must inform the person making the request of the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. | ||
:'''NOTE:''' It can take up to one year to receive records to which access is given. There is no meaningful redress for delays of this nature. | |||
:'''NOTE:''' The federal government has introduced changes to the ''Access to Information Act'' which will strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner to make binding orders to government institutions. | |||
*Complaints should be sent in writing to: | *Complaints should be sent in writing to: | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
The Information Commissioner investigates complaints in private, and each party has the right to make representations. Similar to an Ombudsperson, the Commissioner can only make recommendations, and cannot directly compel the release of information. However, they can take the institution to Federal Court to compel the release of the information. The Commissioner is not obligated to take on a case, and if they refuse to do so, there is no right to appeal this refusal. | The Information Commissioner investigates complaints in private, and each party has the right to make representations. Similar to an Ombudsperson, the Commissioner can only make recommendations, and cannot directly compel the release of information. However, they can take the institution to Federal Court to compel the release of the information. The Commissioner is not obligated to take on a case, and if they refuse to do so, there is no right to appeal this refusal. | ||
:NOTE: It is helpful to check to see if the organization you are requesting information about has a form of its own. It would cut down on time for the form to go directly to the organization. | |||
*There is, however, a right to appeal the original denial of access; this appeal must be made to the Federal Court within '''30 days''' of the decision of the Information Commissioner (s 41(1)). In court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the information must be withheld. | *There is, however, a right to appeal the original denial of access; this appeal must be made to the Federal Court within '''30 days''' of the decision of the Information Commissioner (s 41(1)). In court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the information must be withheld. | ||
