On July 11, 2025, the new Access to Information Act (ATIA) came into force in Alberta. ATIA replaces parts of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Whereas previously, FOIP governed both access to information and protection of privacy in the province, the Government of Alberta has now divided the Act into two parts: ATIA and a new Protection of Privacy Act (POPA).[1]
At the time of its introduction, the Government of Alberta stated that FOIP “did not account for…digital realities or for the sheer volume and complexity of records that are now created and managed by public bodies to provide services to Albertans” and that the new Act would “modernize” rules and processes for accessing records.[2] Unfortunately, while FOIP had issues and could have benefitted from updates and reform, ATIA is not an improvement to Alberta’s access to information regime. Instead, the new ATIA still has all the same, longstanding issues as FOIP (see here for more about FOIP’s challenges), as well as the following changes:
- Expanded exemptions to scope;
- Expanded exceptions to disclosure;
- Longer timelines;
- Expanded powers for public bodies to disregard requests; and
- Increased limits on the authority of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).
This blog reviews each of the aforementioned categories and their likely impacts on access to information in Alberta.
1. Expanded exemptions to scope
Scope refers to the types of information, records and public authorities subject to the Act. Previously, Alberta’s FOIP was criticized for having a limited scope: it only applied to records (as opposed to information) and exempted various public authorities as well as some private entities that performed public functions and/or were significantly funded with public funds.
The new ATIA still has these same issues. In addition, changes to the Act further narrow the scope of documents to which the Act applies. For instance, section 4(1) of ATIA lists the records to which the Act applies. Changes to ATIA make it so that section 4(1) also now exempts the following:
- Information in a “court database of any other record system used by a court” (s. 4(1)(a));
- Records relating to a “potential prosecution” (which is a new and undefined term) (s. 4(1)(m));
- Records in the custody or control of a prosecutor relating to a prosecution or potential prosecution (s. 4(1)(n)); and
- Records of communication between “political staff” (which is a new and undefined term) or a member of Executive Council and “political staff” that does not involve an employee of a public body (s. 4(1)(w)).
Further expansion of the list of exempt records is significant because these records do not have to fall under an exception to be excluded from application of the Act – they are carved out of ATIA and therefore inaccessible to the public. Accordingly, there should always be a strong justification for any exemption.
Other changes to ATIA’s scope include:
- Changes to the definition of “electronic record” (s. 1(f)) and the “duty to assist applicants” (s. 12(2)) which now exclude from the right of access any information that may reside in a database or other electronic form and would require a record to be “created” to respond to the access request; and
- Changes to the definition of “information” (s. 1(k)) and “record” (s. 1(u)) that limit access to information which is already in existence at the time of an access request (and excludes that which could be created from stored electronic information).
As a result of these changes public bodies are no longer obliged to “create a record for an applicant” if the record could be created by manipulating an existing database (and would not unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body) as part of the duty to assist in section 12 of ATIA. These changes appear to codify the Government of Alberta’s longstanding position that it should not have to create a record to satisfy an access request.
Previously, FOIP required public bodies to “create a record” as part of its duty to assist applicants under s. 10(2) of the Act. However, in May of 2025, an investigation and report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) found that the Government of Alberta had “adopted practices and interpretations that [were] non-compliant” with FOIP, including refusing to create records as part of its duty to assist applicants (the ELC wrote a blog on this report here). The Commissioner recommended the Government cease the practice of refusing and instead establish and implement policies that require public bodies to create records in select circumstances as set out in the Act. ATIA essentially removes this obligation.
2. Expanded Exceptions to Disclosure
ATIA also introduces changes that expand the list of exceptions to disclosure. Excepted records are those that would be eligible for disclosure but for the fact that they fall within an exception in the Act. Generally, some exceptions to the right of access are considered necessary (i.e. to protect national security, public health and safety, fair administration of justice, etc.). However, it is also understood that these exceptions should be limited, specific and only available when required.
Unfortunately, FOIP’s exceptions were already overly broad, especially with respect to executive level government transparency, and ATIA has broadened the Act’s exceptions for disclosure further still. These changes include:
- Cabinet and Treasury Board confidences
- Broadened significantly to exempt any record “submitted to or prepared for” and “created by or on behalf of” the Executive Committee or Treasury Board (as opposed to the categories of defined records found in FOIP) (s. 27(1));
- No more carve-outs for background and factual information (s. 27(2));
- Reduced the number of exceptions to this section from three to one (i.e. only the exception for information that has been in a record for 15 years or more remains) (s. 27(3));
- Advice from Officials
- No more carve-outs for background and factual information (s. 29(1));
- Introduction of an exception for “workplace investigations” which is a broad and undefined term (s. 24); and
- Disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body
- Broadened to include information about the “labour relations” (also undefined) of a public body, including information used by a public body during collective bargaining (s. 30(1)(e)).
Again, exceptions are important because they can make or break an access to information regime. When crafted carefully they do not take away from the culture of access and openness that should characterize access legislation. However, when they are overly broad and lack specificity, they ensure that motivated public bodies will be able to find places to hide from their obligations to disclose. ATIA provides more opportunities for the latter.
3. Timeline Extensions
Delay was arguably the most common issue faced by applicants when using FOIP and this is likely to continue with ATIA. For one, ATIA introduces longer timelines for responding to requests because most of the Act now uses “business days” instead of “days” as was used in FOIP.
In addition, section 16 of ATIA now gives public bodies the sole authority to extend the timeline for responding to a request. The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request for up to 30 business days and for “additional reasonable periods”. There is no limit on the number of extensions and the onus is on the applicant to request a review by the Commissioner. Previously, FOIP only permitted public bodies to extend the timeline once for 30 days, and then any further extensions had to be requested from the OIPC.
ATIA also extends the length of an OIPC inquiry from 90 days to 180 business days. While this extension acknowledges that the OIPC was regularly unable to meet FOIP’s 90-day timeline, it also tells us that the Government of Alberta has no intention of addressing the root causes of this delay (i.e. chronic underfunding and staffing of the OIPC).
Finally, in a rare positive change, ATIA adds a provision for the automatic extension of timelines due to emergencies, disasters or other unforeseen events that result in an unplanned operational closure of interruption (s. 36(2)). This is a practical addition to the Act that was missing from FOIP.
4. Expanded Powers for Public Bodies to Disregard Requests
The new ATIA also makes it easier for public bodies to delay and disregard requests. Previously, FOIP required an applicant to “provide enough detail to enable the public body to identify the record”. Section 7(2)(c) of ATIA now goes a step further and states the applicant’s request must “provide enough detail to enable the public body to locate and identify the record within a reasonable time with reasonable effort”. This new language is ambiguous and puts the onus on the applicant to make sure the public body can do its job.
Furthermore, ATIA removes the requirement that public bodies need the Commissioner’s authorization to disregard a request. Instead, section 9(1) of ATIA permits the head of a public body to unilaterally disregard access requests in a number of broad and highly discretionary circumstances. These decisions are reviewable by the Commissioner (s. 9(2)(b)).
Again, these changes appear to codify the Government of Alberta practices that were found to be contrary to FOIP. The May 2025 investigation report by the Commissioner (discussed above) found that public bodies were refusing access requests on the basis that applicants were not providing enough detail, phrasing their requests broadly, or requiring public bodies to create a record. The Commissioner found these refusals were non-compliant with FOIP and asked public bodies to cease these practices. However, these changes to ATIA now give public bodies the discretion to disregard access requests where the public body “does not have information that is sufficiently clear to…locate and identify the record within a reasonable time frame with reasonable effort” or where the request is “overly broad” (s. 9(1)(d)&(e)). Some of the examples in the investigation report showed an egregious disregard of both the spirit and intent of FOIP and the letter of the law. It stands to reason that, with these changes, public bodies may feel further emboldened to disregard legitimate access requests.
5. Increased Limits on the Authority of the OIPC
As mentioned above, ATIA removes the requirement for OIPC authorization to grant timeline extensions and to disregard requests. In addition, ATIA limits the OIPC’s power to extend the time limit for complaints to one 30-day extension (rather than “any longer period allowed by the Commissioner” under FOIP).
More importantly, ATIA removes the Commissioner’s ability to review and compel specific records including court records, cabinet records, “political staff” records and records subject to any kind of legal privilege. The issue of the OIPC being unable to review solicitor-client privileged [RK1] documents was already a known and significant weakness of FOIP. These changes to ATIA only worsen the problem – leaving the OIPC unable to provide a timely and efficient independent review of public body refusals and clogging up the court with challenges.
Overall impact of ATIA
Access to information is vital to democratic participation and government accountability, and Albertans deserve a strong and functioning access to information regime. While FOIP was due for a refresh, the new ATIA does not provide much in the way of improvement. Instead, ATIA exacerbates longstanding issues with Alberta’s access legislation by broadening exemptions and exceptions, lengthening timelines and weakening important oversight authorities. For further discussion on what should be done instead to improve Alberta’s access to information and regulatory disclosure laws, feel free to review the ELC publication Access to Information: Increasing access and disclosure around environmental decision-making.
[1] Note that POPA is not the subject of this blog.
[2] Government of Alberta, “Modernizing access to information for Alberta’s digital age”, online: www.alberta.ca/modernizing-access-to-information-for-albertas-digital-age.