Guidance - Expedited Inquiry - Request for Review of a Decision to Disregard a Request (ATIA Section 9)

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 9 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 under section 9, the applicant may ask the Commissioner to review that decision under Part 3 of ATIA.

Reviews under section 9 are conducted as an Expedited Inquiry.  The Commissioner will not authorize mediation under ATIA section 61 where a public body has decided to disregard an access request under section 9.  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]

Back to top of the page

 

A Public Body’s Duty to Assist an Applicant

A public body is required to assist an applicant in obtaining access to a record in the custody or control of that public body.  The duty to assist an applicant is set out in ATIA section 12 as follows:

12(1) Subject to the regulations, the head of a public body must make every reasonable effort to assist applicants and to respond to each applicant openly, accurately and completely, and in accordance with the regulations.

The duty to assist an applicant is broad and all encompassing.  Among other things, this duty requires public bodies to assist applicants to obtain access to a record in the custody or control of the public body that the applicant wants access to.  Referring to the purpose of ATIA and the significance of access to information legislation to Canadians, this duty must be exercised by the head of a public body in such a manner as to ensure applicants are able to meaningfully exercise their right of access.  To do so, a public body must work with the applicant towards that objective by making “every reasonable effort” and to respond to an applicant “openly, accurately, and completely”.[2]

Section 5 of the ATIA Regulation provides further direction as to the reasonable efforts required by a public body in order to meet its duty to assist:

5(1) For the purposes of section 12(1) of the Act, the duty to make every reasonable effort to assist applicants and to respond to each applicant openly, accurately and completely includes a duty to

(a) engage with an applicant in a way that provides an applicant with every reasonable opportunity to

(i) provide additional information to enable the public body to locate and identify a requested record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort,

(ii) narrow a request that is overly broad, or

(iii) make an incomprehensible request comprehensible,

(b) respond to an applicant’s questions in plain language, and

(c) provide information to an applicant on the kinds of records the public body has in its custody or under its control and offer suggestions on how an applicant may adjust a request to enable the request to be processed.

(2) For the purposes of section 12(1) of the Act, the following factors must be considered when assessing whether the head of a public body has made every reasonable effort to assist an applicant and to respond to each applicant openly, accurately and completely:

(a) the size of the public body;

(b) the number of hours required to assist or respond to the applicant;

(c) the number of staff required to assist or respond to the applicant;

(d) the impact on the regular operations of the public body.

(3) For the purposes of section 12(1) of the Act, the following factors must be considered when assessing whether providing access to a record would unreasonably interfere with the operations of a public body:

(a) the size of the public body;

(b) the number of hours required to provide the applicant with access to a record;

(c) the number of staff required to provide the applicant with access to a record;

(d) the regular duties of the staff whose involvement is required to provide the applicant with access to a record;

(e) the impact of providing access to a record on the operations and resources of the public body.

(4) A public body must create and maintain accurate records that document the public body’s decisions and actions, including the public body’s communications with applicants, respecting each request for access to a record.

The requirement to engage with an applicant under section 5(1)(a) of the ATIA Regulation includes specifies circumstances where a public body is required to take additional steps.  For example, if a public body is of the view that a request does not provide enough detail to enable it to locate and identify the record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort as required by section 7(2)(c) of ATIA, it must engage with an applicant in a way that provides an applicant with every reasonable opportunity to provide additional information to enable a public body to locate and identify a requested record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort.  Similar considerations apply if a public body is of the view that a request is overly broad or incomprehensible.

Engagement under section 5(1)(b) of the ATIA Regulation includes responding to an applicant’s questions in plain language; however, this duty is not limited to responding to questions.  If communications between a public body and an applicant establish that an applicant does not understand or is clearly misinformed about the operation of ATIA or their access rights, a public body has a duty to ensure that such information is conveyed to an applicant in plain language.[3]

An applicant, generally, has no way of knowing the internal workings of a public body and what records it may hold.  Section 5(1)(c) of the ATIA Regulation requires a public body to provide information to an applicant on the kinds of records it has in its custody or under its control and to offer suggestions on how an applicant may adjust a request to enable the request to be processed.  This means a public body cannot set unreasonable parameters when requesting information from an applicant that is unattainable due to an applicant’s lack of knowledge about what records a public body may have that may be responsive to their access request.[4]

Section 5(2) of the ATIA Regulation sets out factors that must be considered when determining whether a public body has met its duty to assist.  As such, in every review of a public body’s decision to disregard a request under section 9(1), a public body is required to provide this information.

Where a public body has determined that providing access to a record will unreasonably interfere with its operations, it is required to provide the information set out in section 5(4) of the ATIA Regulation.

Section 5(4) of the ATIA Regulation is a mandatory requirement for each request for a public body to create and maintain accurate records that document the public body’s decision and actions, including the public body’s communications with applicants.  In a review of a public body’s decision to disregard a request, it is expected to provide the records it created pursuant to section 5(4) of the ATIA Regulation.

Back to top of the page

 

The Head of a Public Body’s Power to Disregard a Request

The authority of the head of a public body to disregard an access request is triggered after the public body has met its duty to assist.[5]  In a review of a decision to disregard a request, a public body is required to provide evidence as to how it met its duty to assist.

Where a public body has met its duty to assist, section 9 of ATIA grants the head of a public body the power to disregard an access request in specific circumstances:

9(1)  The head of a public body may disregard a request under section 7(1) if

(2)  Where the head of a public body has disregarded a request, the applicant must be told

(a) the reasons for the decision to disregard the request, and

(b) that the applicant may ask for a review of that decision under Part 3.

(3) The public body must notify the applicant that the applicant’s request has been disregarded within 30 business days after the public body receives the request.

(4) Despite subsection (3), if the applicant’s request is being disregarded under subsection (1)(d), the public body must notify the applicant that the applicant’s request has been disregarded within 30 days after receiving the applicant’s response to the public body’s request for further information under section 7(3).

Back to top of the page

Section 9 Review – Expedited Inquiry Process

Once an applicant submits a complete written “Request for Review Form - ATIA” of a public body’s section 9 decision to disregard an access request, the parties will receive confirmation of the section 9 expedited inquiry and a Notice of Inquiry setting out submission deadlines and other information.

The expedited inquiry process adheres to the strict timeline schedule outlined in the Notice of Inquiry for the parties to make their submissions.  Parties should download and review the expedited inquiry documents as soon as possible to ensure there is sufficient time to provide their submissions on or before their deadlines.

Generally, the public body will be required to provide a submission on the Form: “Expedited Inquiry – Review of a Disregard Decision under ATIA Section 9”, and the applicant will be provided an opportunity to respond to the public body.  The parties are required to copy each other on all of their communications during an expedited inquiry.[6]  During the expedited inquiry process, the Commissioner will review the parties’ submissions, make a determination on the issues, and issue a decision (Order) when the inquiry is complete.  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 9 Decision

To proceed to an expedited inquiry of a public body’s section 9 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 the public body’s decision to disregard their request reviewed and that the review will proceed by expedited inquiry)
• Provide a copy of the Public Body’s decision under ATIA section 9
• 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 9 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
• An applicant will be provided with an opportunity to respond to a public body’s submission but is not required to do so.

Back to top of the page

Public Body Requirements for an Expedited Inquiry of a Section 9 Decision

If a public body has met its duty to assist and the head has decided to disregard a request, section 9(2) of ATIA states the applicant must be told:

a) the reasons for the decision to disregard the request, and

b) that the applicant may ask for a review of that decision under ATIA Part 3.

Public Bodies are expected to provide the requested information in the form, Expedited Inquiry - Review of a Disregard Decision Under ATIA Section 9.  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 disregarding the request.

A public body bears the burden to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the section 9 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 deprive the applicant of their quasi-constitutional right of access.[7]

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.

Back to top of the page

Guidance for Public Body Submission Form

In an expedited inquiry of a decision to disregard a request under section 9 of ATIA, a public body is required to provide the information set out in the: “Expedited Inquiry – Review of a Disregard Decision under ATIA Section 9” (the Form).  In addition to filling out the Form, a public body should provide copies of all of its records under the ATIA Regulation, section 5(4) requires a public body document its decisions and actions regarding the access request at issue.  A public body should provide any additional information it believes relevant to the decision under section 9, such as evidence of previous requests and responses involving the applicant, or other relevant interactions.

Part A of the Form requires contact information for a public body.

Part B of the Form requires additional background information about the access request and decision to disregard.  Notably, if a decision to disregard a request was not made by the head of a public body, a copy of the written delegation under ATIA section 87 must be provided.[8]

Part C of the Form requires information about every reasonable effort taken by a public body to assist an applicant before the decision was made to disregard the request.

A public body may not be required to fill out the entirety of Part C.  It should fill out only those portions that apply to the decision under review.  For example, if a public body did not determine that a request was overly broad or incomprehensible under ATIA section 9(1)(e), it does not need to provide information as to how it engaged with an applicant to narrow a request that was overly broad or to make an incomprehensible request comprehensible in accordance with the ATIA Regulation.

A public body is required to provide the information set out in ATIA Regulation section 5(2), including:

a) the size of the public body;

b) the number of hours required to assist or respond to the applicant;

c) the number of staff required to assist or respond to the applicant; and

d) the impact on the regular operations of the public body.

If a public body has determined that providing access would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body, it is required to provide the information set out in ATIA Regulation section 5(3).

Part D of the Form requires information about the decision to disregard the request.  As with Part C (Duty to Assist) above, a public body is not required to fill out the entirety of Part D.  A public body should select all subsections of section 9 that it applied in its decision to disregard the applicant’s access request(s).  Please note the public body should fill out the Form only for the subsections that were relied on in making the decision.[9]

As previously discussed, a public body must demonstrate that it met its duty to assist prior to deciding to disregard a request.  Below is a non-exhaustive table of factors for each subsection of ATIA section 9 a public body may consider when it decides to disregard an access request.

 

---

 

Section 9(1)(a)

Responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or amount to an abuse of the right to make a request because the request has been made repeatedly or in a systematic nature

A public body must demonstrate it met its duty to assist before deciding to disregard the request.  In order to apply subsection 9(1)(a) of ATIA, a public body must be satisfied that both requirements of this provision are met.  This means that: 1) responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body OR would amount to an abuse of the right to make a request 2) BECAUSE the request has been made repeatedly OR in a systematic nature.

A public body must explain its reasons for deciding that at least one of the factors for both points 1) and 2) above are satisfied.

Information that may assist the Commissioner in a review of the public body’s decision under this subsection includes:

Would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body

Any access request will interfere with a public body’s operations to some extent. A public body bears the burden to establish that the request at issue would unreasonably interfere with its operations, i.e. describe the public body’s operations and explain how the access request varies from a typical request that the public body processes.

In reviewing the public body’s decision, the Commissioner may consider evidence about the following factors that support the public body’s decision under this section:

• The size of the public body
• The number of hours required to provide the applicant with access to a record
• The number of staff required to provide the applicant with access to a record
• The regular duties of the staff whose involvement is required to provide the applicant with access to a record
• The impact on the regular operations of the public body

OR

 Amount to an abuse of the right to make a request

A public body should explain its decision for determining that the request amounts to an abuse of the right to make a request.

AND

Repeatedly

A request is repetitious if it has been made for the same records or information more than once.  If relying on this factor, a public body should provide evidence of the applicant’s previous requests that demonstrate the request for the same records or information has been made previously (e.g. the wording is similar or identical, or the responsive records are the same).  The public body should clarify whether some or all of the request(s) at issue have been made repeatedly.

OR

Systematic nature

A request that has been made in a systematic nature includes a pattern of conduct that is regular or deliberate.  If relying on this factor in its reasons for decision, a public body should refer to evidence of the applicant’s previous requests or other behaviours that demonstrate the request has been made in a systematic nature.

 

---

 

Section 9(1)(b)

The request is abusive, threatening, frivolous or vexatious, or is made in an abusive or threatening manner.

A public body must demonstrate it met its duty to assist before deciding to disregard the request and in its decision, must explain its reasons for finding the request is abusive or threatening, or frivolous or vexatious, or is made in an abusive or threatening manner.  The public body may refer to information to support its decision, such as the applicant’s history or interactions with the public body, or other circumstances that support the public body’s decision under this section.

 

---

 

Section 9(1)(c)

The information the request relates to has already been provided to the applicant or has been made available to the public under section 90 or 91.

A public body must demonstrate it met its duty to assist before deciding to disregard the request.  In its decision, the public body must explain its reasons for deciding the information the request relates to has already been provided to the applicant OR that the information has been made available to the public under section 90 or 91.

Has already been provided to the applicant

If the public body made its decision under this section, it should:

• Provide information about the previous information that was provided to the applicant and when that information was provided
• Explain how the previous information provided relates to the current request
• Provide clarification as to whether all of the information requested has been provided, or only some, and if not all, explain what information has not been provided to the applicant.

OR

Has been made available to the public under section 90 or 91

The information the request relates to has been made available to the public under section 90 or 91. These sections state:

Records available without request

90(1)  The head of a public body may specify categories of records that are in the custody or under the control of the public body and are available to the public without a request for access under this Act.

(2)  Any information that the head of a public body would be authorized or required to refuse to give access to under this Act may be excluded from a record that is available to the public without a request for access under this Act.

(3)  The head of a public body may require a person who asks for a copy of an available record to pay a fee to the public body, unless such a record can otherwise be accessed without a fee.

(4)  Subsection (1) does not limit the discretion of the Government of Alberta or a public body to release records that do not contain personal information.

(5)  Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, there is no right to request a review in relation to a decision respecting whether to make a record available to the public under this section.

Access to manuals, handbooks and guidelines

91(1)  The head of every public body must make any manual, handbook or other guideline used by employees of the public body in decision‑making processes that affect the public available to the public without a request for access under this Act.

(2)  Any information that the head of a public body would be authorized or required to refuse to give access to under this Act may be excluded from the manuals, handbooks or other guidelines that must be made available to the public under subsection (1).

(3)  The head of a public body may require a person who asks for a copy of a manual, handbook or other guideline to pay a fee to the public body unless the manual, handbook or other guideline can otherwise be accessed without a fee.

(4)  Subsection (1) does not limit the discretion of the Government of Alberta or a public body to release a manual, handbook or other guideline that does not contain personal information.

 

If the public body made its decision under this section it should:

• Describe what information has been made available to the public and how it can be accessed
• Confirm when the applicant was notified the information was available to the public (and provide copies of the relevant correspondence)
• Explain how the information available to the public is the same as that being requested by the applicant
• Confirm whether all of the information requested by the applicant is available to the public under section 90 or 91, and if it is not all available, describe which parts of the applicant’s request are not available to the public and whether that information will be provided to the applicant.

 

---

 

Section 9(1)(d)

Despite receiving further information from an applicant under section 7(3), the request does not meet the requirements of section 7(2)(c) because the public body does not have information that is sufficiently clear to enable the public body to locate and identify the record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort.

A public body that has made a decision under section 9(1)(d) must demonstrate that it met its duty to assist and provide the following:

• A copy of the public body’s request for further information under section 7(3),
• A copy of the applicant’s response to the public body’s request for further information under section 7(3), and
• Confirmation that the applicant was notified that the request has been disregarded by the public body within 30 days after receiving the applicant’s response

Section 9(4) of ATIA states:

(4)  Despite subsection (3), if the applicant’s request is being disregarded under subsection (1)(d), the public body must notify the applicant that the applicant’s request has been disregarded within 30 days after receiving the applicant’s response to the public body’s request for further information under section 7(3).

The public body must explain its reasons for deciding that despite receiving further information from an applicant under section 7(3) the request does not meet the requirements of section 7(2)(c) because the public body does not have information that is sufficiently clear to enable the public body to locate and identify the record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort.

Sufficiently clear to enable the public body to locate and identify the record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort

If the public body made its decision under this section it should:

• Explain why it decided the applicant’s response was not sufficiently clear, i.e. explain what is unclear about the request
• Re Locate and identify – Explain why the public body is unable to locate and identify the responsive record(s) – this may include information about the public body’s records management system such as where physical or electronic records are stored or other relevant information that prevents the public body from responding to the request
• Re reasonable time with reasonable effort – Explain what the public body would consider a reasonable time to locate and identify the record and why this request does not meet that standard. Also explain what the public body would consider a reasonable effort and why this request does not meet that standard.  A public body should include other relevant information such as whether it extended its time to respond under ATIA section 16.
• Information about the public body’s usual procedures for locating and identifying records, as well as information about its usual timelines for processing requests will be of assistance in reviewing decisions under this section.

 

---

 

Section 9(1)(e)

The request is overly broad or incomprehensible

A public body must demonstrate it met its duty to assist before deciding to disregard the request and explain its reasons for deciding the request is overly broad or incomprehensible.

ATIA Regulations sections 5(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) require a public body to engage with an applicant in a way that provides an applicant with every reasonable opportunity to narrow a request that is overly broad or make an incomprehensible request comprehensible.  A public body should provide copies of its communications with the applicant and the applicant’s response (if any).  If the public body did not seek any additional clarification, it should explain its reasons for not doing so.

• Overly broad – Access requests can be broad. The public body should explain its reasons for deciding the request is overly broad, and include information as to whether it attempted to narrow the request with the applicant. The public body should also include any response from the applicant. The public body may include information about the number of responsive records, the time required to respond, or other factors that the public body considered would impact its response.

OR

• Incomprehensible – the public body should explain its reasons for deciding the request is incomprehensible, and include information as to whether it attempted to clarify the request with the applicant. The public body should also include any response from the applicant.

 

Part E of the Form permits a public body to provide additional relevant information.  A public body may provide this information in a separate document or affidavit. It is not required to fit on the Form.

Part F of the Form sets out a final checklist of documents required by a Public Body in an expedited inquiry reviewing a decision under section 9 of ATIA.

Back to top of the page

Completing a Public Body’s Submission

Once a public body has completed its submission, it should be sent to expeditedinquiry@oipc.ab.ca.  A public body should ensure the OIPC file number is included and that the applicant is copied on the submission. Ex parte communications in an expedited inquiry will not be accepted. The only exception is where a party completes the Request to Provide an In Camera Submission Form and the request is granted.

Back to top of the page

Disregard 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.  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

Footnotes

[1] Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 ABKB 198 at para 76 (appeal allowed on a narrow, unrelated point regarding only the remedy 2025 ABCA 163)

[2] Order ATIA2026-DEI-02 at paras 12 – 21.

[3] Order ATIA2026-DEI-02 at paras 75 – 94.

[4] Order ATIA2026-DEI-02 at paras 17 – 19.

[5] Order ATIA2026-DEI-02 at paras 32 – 34.

[6] Parties are required to copy all other parties on their communications in an expedited inquiry.  The sole exception, where circumstances warrant, is upon request, the Commissioner may decide to accept an in camera submission from a party.  An in camera submission is one that is not provided to the other party.  In camera submissions will not be accepted unless the Commissioner has issued a decision accepting an in camera submissions.  If a party to an expedited inquiry wants to make an in camera submission, they must follow the process set out in the Form: Request to Provide an In camera Submission If a party does not copy all other parties on a communication, and has not made an in camera request which has been granted, the communication will not be accepted in the expedited inquiry.

[7] Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 ABKB 198 at para 76 (appeal allowed on a narrow, unrelated point regarding only the remedy 2025 ABCA 163)

[8] If a decision under review in an expedited inquiry was made by someone other than the head of a public body, and a copy of the written delegation is not provided, a negative inference may be drawn (See Orders FOIP2025-34/ATIA2025-DEI-02 at para 23 and ATIA2026-TEI-12 at para 5).

[9] Order ATIA2026-DEI-01

 

September 2026