Annual Report: 2004-2005

In previous reports, concern was expressed that a system-wide improvement in meeting response deadlines might be the result of abuse of the Act’s extension of response-time provisions. Indeed, since the 2000-01 fiscal year, the number of complaints concerning time extensions has more than doubled. To assess the veracity of these impressions, the commissioner initiated a study in the fall of 2004.

Forty-two government institutions were canvassed by a written questionnaire concerning their general approach to applying time extensions. Based on an analysis of the responses, the commissioner chose a representative sample of eight institutions in which to conduct a more in-depth study. The methodology included in-person interviews with ATIP coordinators and a review of selected processing files for access requests in respect of which the response times were extended beyond 30 days. The main elements of the review included:

1. Were reasons for extension documented on the files?

2. Was there evidence supporting the need for an extension and the duration of the extension?

3. Were answers given within the extended period and, if not, what was the duration of delay beyond the extended period?

4. Does the institution have a tracking and BF system to monitor compliance with extended response times?

5. Does the institution follow a practice of partial disclosure prior to the end of the extended period?

6. When extensions are taken for the purpose of consultations with other government institutions, are there appropriate prior consultations and follow-up with the institution being consulted?

7. When extensions are for the purpose of consultations with nongovernmental third parties, are the time delays specified in sections 27 and 28 of the Act respected?

8. When extensions are longer than 30 days, does the institution fulfill its obligation to notify the Information Commissioner?

9. Of all access requests received by an institution, in what percentage was the 30-day response time extended? What was the average length of the extension?

In half of the 42 institutions surveyed, 40 percent or more (up to a high of 80 percent) of all access requests received had an extension of time applied. The study also determined that the overall management of extensions demonstrates serious shortcomings.

First, there is a lack of comprehensive and consistently applied criteria for determining whether or not paragraph 9(1)(a) extensions are needed and, if so, the appropriate duration of the extension.

Second, there is no consistent practice in government institutions of documenting processing files with the justification for claiming extensions.

Third, there is widespread failure to meet the extended response times. This is particularly true in the case of extensions for consultations with third parties and despite the fact that the timelines for such consultations are set by the statute.

Fourth, consultations with PCO require twice as much time to complete than do consultations with other government institutions.

Finally, the study determined that institutions are not consistently notifying the Information Commissioner of extensions of more than 30 days. The study also showed discrepancies between the response-time statistics which institutions report to Parliament and Treasury Board, on the one hand, and those reported during this study. Treasury Board conducts no verifications of the statistics provided to it by government institutions.

These results support the need for more careful management of extensions by government institutions, better guidance and verification from Treasury Board, allocation of sufficient resources to ensure that extensions are the exception not the rule, improved turnaround time on consultations by PCO and continued monitoring by the Information Commissioner.