Guidance - Expedited Inquiry - Request for Review of a Time Extension Decision (ATIA Section 16)

This Guidance Document is intended to help applicants and public bodies understand the information required by the Commissioner when conducting an expedited inquiry into the head of a public body’s decision under section 16 of the Access to Information Act (ATIA). This document may be updated over time. The current version will be on the OIPC website.
In this document, “Commissioner” means the Information and Privacy Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate. References to a “public body” may include the head or the head’s delegate.

Overview

When an applicant who has made a request for access to information under ATIA section 7(1) receives a decision from the head of a public body about extending the time limit for responding to the request under section 16, the applicant may ask the Commissioner to review that decision under Part 3 of ATIA.

Reviews under section 16 are conducted as an Expedited Inquiry.    The Commissioner will not authorize mediation under ATIA section 61 where a public body has decided to extend timelines under section 16.  Access to information is a quasi-constitutional right that is premised on relatively tight timelines and an obligation for the public body to respond quickly.  For the right of access to be meaningful, it must be timely.[1]

Section 16 of the ATIA grants a public body the power to extend the time for responding to an access request in specific circumstances:

[1] Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024, ABKB 198 at para 76; rev’d on other grounds, 2025 ABCA 163

Back to top of the page

Section 16 Review - Expedited Inquiry Process

Once an applicant submits a complete written Request for Review Form – ATIA of a public body’s section 16 decision to extend time, the parties will receive confirmation of the section 16 expedited inquiry and a Notice of Inquiry setting out submission deadlines and other information.

Generally, the public body will be required to provide a submission on the Form Expedited Inquiry - Review of a Time Extension Decision Under ATIA Section 16, and the applicant will be provided an opportunity to respond to the public body.  The parties are required to copy each other on their submissions.  Once the expedited inquiry process is complete, the Commissioner will review the parties’ submissions, make a determination on the issues, and issue a decision (Order).  The Commissioner’s Order will be provided in writing.

Back to top of the page

Applicant Requirements to Request a Review of a Public Body’s Section 16 Decision

To proceed to an expedited inquiry of a public body’s section 16 decision, the following steps are required from an applicant, or the expedited inquiry cannot proceed:

• Complete the Request for Review Form - ATIA (the applicant must check the box in the Form confirming their intent to have a time extension decision reviewed and that the review will proceed by expedited inquiry)
• Provide a copy of the Public Body’s decision under ATIA section 16
• Deliver a copy of the written Request for Review Form to the head of the public body that made the decision
• A request for review of a Public Body’s section 16 decision must be made within 60 business days after the person asking for the review is notified of the decision (ATIA section 59(2)). The Commissioner may allow a longer period of up to 30 additional business days.

Back to top of the page

Public Body Requirements for an Expedited Inquiry of a Section 16 Decision

Section 16(5) of ATIA states if the time for responding to a request is extended under subsection 1-4, the head of the public body must tell the applicant:

a) the reason for the extension,

b) when a response can be expected, and

c) that the applicant may request a review of the extension by the Commissioner.

Public Bodies are expected to provide the requested information in the form Expedited Inquiry - Review of a Time Extension Decision Under ATIA Section 16. In completing this form, a public body may refer to the paragraphs (or locations) of its decision that correspond to the reasons provided to the applicant for extending its timelines to respond.

A public body bears the burden to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the section 16 decision is reasonable or justified in the circumstances.  A public body is expected to “put its best foot forward with evidence” to support its decision to delay the applicant of their quasi-constitutional right of access.[2]

An example of evidentiary requirements to support a time extension is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence, 2015 FCA 56.

The public body will be required to provide a copy of its submission to the applicant and the applicant will be given an opportunity to respond to the public body’s submission.

Generally, once the public body and the applicant have provided their submissions (or had an opportunity to do so), submissions will be closed and the Commissioner will issue an Order. The Commissioner will not typically seek additional information from the parties.  In rare circumstances, the Commissioner may request additional information, or a party may request permission from the Commissioner to make an additional submission.

[2] Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024, ABKB 198 at para 21; rev’d on other grounds, 2025 ABCA 163

Back to top of the page

Applicable Sections of ATIA

The public body should select all the subsections of section 16 that it applied as reasons to why they extended their timelines to respond to an access request.  The public body should fill out the Form only for the subsections that were relied on in making the decision.

Below is a non-exhaustive table of factors for each subsection of ATIA section 16 a public body may consider when it made its decision to extend its timelines to respond to an access request.

Section 16(1)(a)

Applicant agreed

The public body will be required to provide evidence that the applicant agreed to the extension that was taken.  Generally, the public body should provide a copy of correspondence with the applicant which includes the applicant’s agreement to the extension.

Section 16(1)(b

A large number of records are requested and more time is required to process the request

In its decision, the public body must provide information about the number of records and justification for why more time was required to process the request.

Number of records

The OIPC has previously considered 500 or more pages as the threshold for what may constitute a large number.

If the number is less than 500 pages, a rationale must be provided why the circumstances might constitute a “large number”.

The following are general ranges for reasonable extension times, subject to the specific circumstances of each case:

Factors that may assist the public body in supporting its decision to extend time under section 16(1) include:

• The number of pages of records that need to be searched or that are responsive to the request.
• Search details, accessibility of the records, number of systems and officials involved and any problems encountered.
• Approximate time to search.
• Types/formats of records that require different handling methods or expertise.
• Date the search for records was initiated and responsive records provided to the request processing office.
• Impacts to the public body’s operations that would result from processing the request without an extension of time. This includes impacts that result from the search for and identification of responsive records or consultation to consider the proper application of exceptions.
• Level of complexity of the request and consideration of detailed severing that may impact the ability to process the request within standard timelines.
• The ability to reallocate staff to complete the processing.
• The number of access requests to process (which may be outside the norm). Note: An explanation must be provided that compares current volume with prior months/years.
• Other access and privacy activities the public body is currently managing that are impacted by the request.
• The public body, based on its size and normal access to information processing capacity, has demonstrated it has adequately resourced its Access to Information program, but despite this, the access request impacts the public body.
• Whether an unexpected or temporary resource issue impacts the public body’s ability to respond in time (evidence and rationale required). Efforts made by the public body to address resourcing issues required.

The public body should also consider previous orders of the OIPC that have stated factors that will not be considered, such as:

• Temporary lack of resources due to holidays or chronic lack of resources (Order F2021-46). Public bodies should establish a baseline of what human resources are reasonably required to process the normal/average amount of access requests.
• Lengthy internal procedures (sign-offs) that cause unreasonable delay (Order F2017-12).

Additionally, the OIPC has previously found the following factors do not support a time extension:

• Poor records management or use of programs or technology that unreasonably lengthen search times or the ability to create a response record package.
• Failure of program areas to provide records in a timely way.
• Statistics that do not inform how they impact the processing of the access request (eg. “We have received 100 access requests so far this year”, without providing how this is different from other times and how it affects the request).

Section 16(1)(c)

More time is needed to consult with a third party, another public body or another entity

In its decision, the public body should explain its determination that it needs to consult with a third party, another public body or another entity.

Section 16 does not impose a duty to consult with third parties outside of section 35 duties. The public body should consider if consultation is necessary to make a determination regarding access, as this is a discretionary process (as previously considered in Order F2018-10 at para. 11-16).

The following factors may assist the public body in making its decision.  The public body may not need to consult with a third party, another public body or another entity where it has already determined whether access will be provided, for example:

• The public body has determined there is a clear right of access to the information because no exception to the right of access exists; or
• The public body has determined that it is clear that there is an exception to the right of access and intends to refuse access to the information requested (Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health) 2012 SCC 3, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 23).

In its decision the public body should explain why the legislated time limit was not sufficient to complete the consultation(s) and why the extension taken is reasonable in the circumstances. The following may be considered, where applicable:

• Nature of the records and complexity of the consultation.
• Number of other third parties, public bodies, or other entities that need to be consulted.
• Date requests to consult were sent or when they will be sent.
• Amount of time provided to the third party, other public body or other entity to respond to the consultation request, including an expected response date.
• Approximate number of records involved in total and the number of records involved for the consultation(s) (required).
• The length of time the public body took to determine the need to consult.
• Any challenges in contacting the third party, other public body or entity for consultation.

The OIPC has previously found the following factor does not support a time extension:

• Internal consultations conducted within the public body.

Section 16(2)

Extension taken for additional reasonable periods

If an extension is taken beyond 30 days under section 16(1)(a-c), in its decision, the public body should explain how the additional time taken is reasonable under the circumstances and which sections applied and why.  The public body can refer back to explanations above under section 16(1)(a-c) for guidance in supporting its decision.

Section 16(3)

Multiple concurrent requests have been made

The OIPC has previously considered 2 or more separate requests received from the same applicant within a 30-day time period of the access request (either way) to be concurrent.

Factors that may be considered:

• Number of separate concurrent requests received.
• Dates the public body received each separate request.
• Whether the same applicant submitted each separate request.
• If there are two (2) or more applicants, evidence that they work for the same organization or in association with each other.
• Approximate number of records involved in the access request and the concurrent requests (required).

The OIPC has previously held that requests made outside of 30 days of each other are not concurrent. However, multiple requests that fall outside this parameter may be considered in terms of whether the extension was reasonable.

The OIPC does not consider requests concurrent if the public body decides to split an access request into separate files.

Section 16(4)

Time to comply with the requirements of section 36

Where the public body is issuing a notice(s) under section 35, it may extend the time for responding to a request or part of a request for the period of time necessary for the public body to comply with the requirements of section 36 (only for those records subject to the section 35 notice).

Section 16(4) does not apply to the records outside of those involved in the section 35 notice.

The OIPC has in previous Orders F2023-09 and F2011-003 determined that records that do not contain information relating to the third party are not awaiting a decision from the third party whether to request a review.  The public body should, therefore, provide the records not subject to a third party request for review to the applicant, subject to any exceptions.

Section 16(5)

Notice to applicant

This section outlines the public body’s requirements for notifying the applicant when the time for responding to a request is extended under subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4).

Section 16(6)

Commissioner’s extension

This section is not applicable to public bodies extending their timelines, but outlines the Commissioner’s requirements (acting as the head of a public body), for notifying the applicant when the time responding to a request is extended under subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4).

Section 16(7)

Third party request for review

If a third party has asked for a review under section 58(2) or 79(3), the time is automatically extended with respect to the record or part of the record that is the subject of the request for review until the review and inquiry process has concluded.

Section 16(8)

Notice to applicant for 16(7) extension

This section outlines the public body’s requirements for notifying the applicant if the time of responding to a request or part of a request is automatically extended under subsection (7).

Section 16(9)

Emergency, disaster or other unforeseen event

The time for responding to a request is automatically extended in certain circumstances. The public body must provide evidence/details of the emergency, disaster or other unforeseen event that resulted in an unplanned operational closure or interruption.

Types of circumstances that may be considered for this section:

• The public body is unable to access their work location or offsite storage facility for a prolonged period due to fire, flood, or other natural disaster.
• The public body’s work location or offsite storage facility becomes inaccessible due to an emergency, disaster or other unforeseen event such as a police emergency or lengthy power outage.
• Other circumstances that cause an unplanned operational closure or interruption of services.

Section 16(10)

Notice to Commissioner and applicant

This section outlines the notification requirements for the public body when time for responding to a request is automatically extended under subsection (9):

As soon as practicable, the public body must notify the Commissioner with:

• the details of the emergency, disaster or other unforeseen event and the anticipated end date to the unplanned operational closure or interruption;

and

• when the emergency, disaster or other unforeseen event has ended or when normal operations have resumed

and

as soon as practicable, the public body must notify the applicant:

• when normal operations have resumed,
• when a response to the applicant’s request may be expected, and
• that the applicant may request a review of the extension

Back to top of the page

Was the Extension Taken Reasonable?

For all sections that are cited in an extension decision, a public body must make a serious effort to assess the amount of time it requires to complete processing of an access request.  The public body should only extend the time for responding to a request by what is reasonably required to complete the access request in a timely fashion.  The public body, in their decision, should provide details of how they applied their discretion in determining the amount of time extension they took.

Is the extension that was taken reasonable?

A public body should outline all relevant circumstances that justify that the length of the time extension that was taken is reasonable.  To complete processing of an access request and in order to pass a reasonableness review, the extension taken must be sufficiently rigorous, logical and supportable (Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence, 2015 FCA 56).

Factors that may be considered:

• What tasks had been completed before the extension was taken. Is this reasonable progress?
• What tasks remain.
• The estimated time required to complete each remaining task.
• The public body must provide details of how they determined the additional amount of time they required; eg.:
  • the degree of complexity presented by the applicant’s access request(s).
  • any other relevant factors.
• Other access requests submitted by the same applicant but are outside of the timelines to make them concurrent under s. 16(3).
• Is the public body considering a staggered release if it is a large request?
• Has the public body informed or consulted with the applicant about the time extension before it was taken (other than direct consent from the applicant)?
• Are there other relevant facts or circumstances surrounding the access request that may affect the Commissioner’s decision in the Order (eg., pending public inquiries, legal proceedings) Blades Alberta (IPC), 2021 ABQB 725.

The public body should also consider previous orders of the OIPC that have stated factors that will not be considered, such as:

• Chronic staffing issues (Order F2018-10)
• Unusually long times taken for internal reviews to ensure consistency or signoffs (Order F2017-12).

The OIPC has previously found the following factors do not support a time extension:

• Any initial delays caused by the public body in processing the request, for example:
• delay in assignment
• failure to issue record searches in a timely manner
• failure to respond to record search requests
• poor records management or use of programs or technology that unreasonably lengthens search times or the ability to create a response record package.

The OIPC will review the public body’s justification for the time extension it took and evaluate if the amount of additional time taken was reasonable, based on the decision and additional information provided in its submission.

Back to top of the page

Time Extension Decision - Order

After an expedited inquiry is complete under ATIA section 62, the Commissioner will review the submissions, make a determination on the issues, and issue an Order under ATIA section 64(3)(b).  The order will either confirm or reduce the extension of a time limit taken under section 16.  Orders are generally published and a copy of the Order will be provided to the public body and the applicant.

Back to top of the page