On May 8, 2025, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) of Alberta released its long-awaited investigation report into the Government of Alberta’s practices respecting access to information.[1] The investigation was launched in response to, among other things, allegations of non-compliance by The Globe and Mail (G&M) with respect to access requests made as part of their Secret Canada series.
Following their investigation, the OIPC found the government has “adopted practices and interpretations that are non-compliant with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act”.[2] These include requiring applicants to limit the number of topics in an access request to one; placing limitations on the timeframe of the search for records; requiring applicants to split requests containing multiple topics into multiple requests; and requiring applicants to structure requests in a way that allow the requests to be completed within 30 days.[3] They also include unauthorized “refusals” due to a lack of detail in a request and/or having to create a new record. The report concluded by making recommendations to remedy the non-compliance and stressed that these remedies will continue to apply even when the new Access to Information Act comes into force.
Background: The Globe and Mail and “Secret Canada”
Beginning in 2021, the G&M performed an audit of every Canadian jurisdiction’s freedom of information (FOI) processes.[4] Entitled “Secret Canada”, the goal of the project was to examine each jurisdiction’s performance on access and transparency. Reporters sent FOI requests to every federal, territorial and provincial department and ministry of Canada (253 in total). In response, every jurisdiction across the country supplied information. Every jurisdiction except Alberta, that is, where all 22 ministries denied the G&M’s request and claimed no records existed.[5]
The G&M’s requests were for access to basic data from each institution’s internal FOI tracking system. Alberta’s 22 ministries claimed that “no records” existed because the information did not exist in the exact format requested and to provide the information it would have to create a new record (i.e. download the information from a database). The Government of Alberta took the position that it was not required by the Act to create a record.
The G&M published its findings in June 2022. At first, the Government of Alberta appeared chastened and promised to investigate the decision to issue rejections to the information requests.[6] However, the G&M sent a second round of FOI requests a few months later and the Government of Alberta took the same position (i.e. that no records existed) and again rejected the requests. This time the G&M filed an appeal with Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”).[7] The G&M’s reporting, along with 34 requests for review in Spring of 2023, became the “catalyst” for the OIPC investigation.[8]
Scope of the OIPC Investigation
The OIPC investigation looked into three issues, specifically, the Government of Alberta public bodies’ compliance with sections 7(2), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). These sections are reproduced below:
How to make a request
…
7(2) A request must be in writing and must provide enough detail to enable the public body to identify the record.
Duty to assist applicants
10(1) The head of a public body must make every reasonable effort to assist applicants and to respond to each applicant openly, accurately and completely.
(2) The head of a public body must create a record for an applicant if
(a) the record can be created from a record that is in electronic form and in the custody or under the control of the public body, using its normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise, and
(b) creating the record would not unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body.
The investigation found that the Government of Alberta’s practices with respect to all three sections were not compliant with the Act. Each of these issues are addressed in turn below.
Note that almost all Government of Alberta public bodies utilize a centralized model (referred to as Central Intake) that operates within the FOIP Operations (FOIP-OPS) Branch to handle access requests. FOIP-OPS is responsible for receiving, assessing and processing access requests on behalf of participating Government of Alberta public bodies. The two bodies that do not utilize FOIP-OPS are the departments of Health and Mental Health and Addictions. Regardless, all public bodies use the same processes and procedures (set out in the “Access Request Playbook”). For the most part, it is these centralized processes and procedures that are the subject of the investigation.
Issue 1: Government of Alberta practices re section 7(2) of FOIP
Section 7(2) of FOIP provides that a “request must be in writing and provide enough detail to enable the public body to identify the record”. The Commissioner found that public bodies were interpreting section 7(2) of the Act as permitting them to refuse to process an access request on the basis that insufficient detail was provided by the applicant. This was contrary to the Act as section 7 does not speak to what a public body may or may not do, it speaks to what an applicant must do to get access. Only section 55 of the Act permits a public body to disregard an access request and even then only if they are authorized to do so by the Commissioner.[9]
Moreover, the degree of specificity identified and required by the public bodies in the requests for review was “unattainable” by an applicant and “unreasonable” for a public body to request.[10] This is because only public bodies know what records they have and how they are stored. It is also in part why public bodies are obliged by section 10(1) of the Act to assist applicants with their request (discussed in greater detail in Issue 2 below). The Commissioner specifically noted that the way the public bodies “have been interpreting section 7(2) defeats the purpose of section 2(a) and ignores the spirit and intent of the Act”.[11]
Issue 2: Government of Alberta practices re section 10(1) of FOIP
Section 10(1) of the Act provides an overarching duty of a public body to make “every reasonable effort” to assist an applicant. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act also clarifies that assisting an applicant includes contacting them to seek further information about their request and assisting them in determining what record the public body has that may be responsive. Accordingly, in cases where the applicant does not provide enough detail, the public body has a duty to try and seek enough detail to identify the record and work with the applicant to potentially narrow the request.[12]
Yet, with the exception of one access request, the investigation found that the public bodies did not try to assist applicants that failed to provide “enough detail” in their requests. Instead, they sent a letter to the applicant advising they had insufficient details and closed their file the same day. The applicants were not given the opportunity to clarify their requests.[13] The Commissioner found these practices were non-compliant with section 10(1) of FOIP.
The investigation also looked at FOIP-OPS (and public bodies’) practices with respect to the handling of cross-government requests. The Access Request Playbook considers an access request to be “cross-government” when “a request with the same scope is received by two or more” public bodies.[14] In practice, cross-government requests were subject to a joint review by officials and a collective response. The Commissioner noted that the collective response to these requests could interfere with each department’s independent statutory duties to the applicant. The duty to assist under section 10(1) of FOIP is between a public body and an applicant and “no one else”.[15]
In addition, the investigation looked at FOIP-OPS practices with respect to requiring applicants to narrow the scope and time frame of their requests and/or split requests into a single topic, and whether these practices were consistent with section 10(1) of the Act. For instance, the requests for review revealed that public bodies were in the habit of asking applicants to “commit to a single topic” as well as stating that a “2 year timeframe is too broad”.[16] They also required applicants to split requests into multiple individual access requests, each of which would trigger a separate fee. The Commissioner found that requiring applicants to limit their timeframe or topic and/or split requests is contrary to the duty to assist in section 10(1) of FOIP.
Recommendations for Issues 1 & 2
To remedy the non-compliance with respect to sections 7(2) and 10(1) of FOIP, the Commissioner essentially recommended following the Act. This included establishing and implementing policies and procedures that ensure public bodies assist applicants to provide “enough detail” to process a request, and ceasing the practices of: refusing access requests under section 7(2) of the Act; requiring applicants to limit timeframes or topics in a request and/or split requests so that the public body can meet its statutory 30-day timeframe; and refusing FOI requests because they cannot be completed within 30 days.
Issue 3: Government of Alberta practices re section 10(2) of FOIP
Section 10(2) of FOIP provides that the head of a public body must create a record for an applicant if:
- The record can be created from a record that is in electronic form and in the custody or under the control of the public body, using its normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise, and
- Creating the record would not unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body.
Put another way, section 10(2) of the Act creates a separate duty to assist applicants by manipulating existing electronic data to produce it in a form that is more usable or economical for the applicant.[17]
Nevertheless, the Government of Alberta has taken the blanket position that FOIP does not require public bodies to manipulate information to create a record that does not already exist.[18] This position is set out in writing in a 2016 Government of Alberta directive issued to employees. The Government of Alberta claims that it is not required to create a record because FOIP provides access to records that already exist and does not require public bodies to manipulate information to create a new record. They also claim it would be unreasonable for a public body to have to run custom database search queries or alter records by removing information and the duty to create a record was not meant to govern access to databases.[19]
The Commissioner reviewed the relevant sections of FOIP as well as Orders dealing with similar legislative language out of British Columbia. They found there was “no ambiguity in section 10(2), especially when read in conjunction with the right of access in section 6 and the section 10(1) duty to assist”.[20] Rather, it was “clear…that a public body must create a record if it can as described” in section 10(2) of FOIP.[21] The Commissioner acknowledged there may be instances where creating a new record would unreasonably interfere with operations due to requiring significant manual effort to manipulate data. This does not, however, nullify the duty of the public body to provide copies of as much of the database or document as is reasonably possible to provide.[22]
It is noteworthy that the Government of Alberta’s position on section 10(2) was the primary issue in its dealings with the G&M and its FOIP requests in 2022. The G&M made requests for copies of data columns contained in the internal system the government used to track FOI requests. The internal system, a software program called AMANDA, is a case management system designed to simplify FOI processes. The Government of Alberta advised that there were no responsive records and did not provide access to records in the format requested or as copies of information in AMANDA. There was also no evidence that the Government of Alberta tried to work with the G&M with respect to its request and provide either raw data or some other data that may have been responsive to its request.[23]
The Commissioner found this response amounted to a refusal which was not permitted under section 10(2) of FOIP. Furthermore, the Commissioner found the information sought by the G&M was contained in the AMANDA database, and likely could have been provided in some form or another.[24] Overall, the Commissioner concluded that the Government of Alberta’s blanket refusal to create a record in response to an access request was contrary to section 10(2) of FOIP.
Recommendations for Issue 3
Again, to remedy the non-compliance with respect to section 10(2) of the Act, the Commissioner recommended the Government of Alberta simply follow the plain language of FOIP. This includes establishing and implementing policies that ensure public bodies meet their statutory duty to create a record in the format requested (such as by manipulating existing data in a record) and to work with the applicant when a record cannot be created as requested.
Conclusions
This investigation and the ensuing report confirm that the Government of Alberta has adopted practices and interpretations that do not align with FOIP and are non-compliant with the Act. In particular, public bodies are not meeting their duty to assist with respect to sections 7(2), 10(1) and 10(2) of FOIP.
In some instances, the Commissioner acknowledged that these practices appeared geared towards assisting public bodies to meet their obligation to respond within the 30-day legislative timeframe. The Act, however, does not require applicants to structure requests so that they can be responded to within 30 days. It is expected that “from time to time” the “breadth of an access request may result in a public body failing to meet their deadline to respond”.[25] Moreover, this potential outcome does not negate the Government’s duties under FOIP.
For the most part, however, the non-compliant practices and interpretations appear to simply be both deliberate and standardized responses to FOI requests. As noted above, almost all Government of Alberta public bodies utilize a central branch (i.e. FOIP-OPS) to handle access requests, and all public bodies use the same processes and procedures (i.e. the Access Request Playbook). The investigation reveals that some of these processes and procedures are simply not in-line with the duties set out in FOIP and have led to governmental non-compliance.
A generous interpretation is that these issues are a result of a government culture that prioritizes administrative efficiency over meeting the letter of the law. However, a less generous interpretation would be that the Government of Alberta is deliberately not complying with the Act so that it can withhold information from its citizens. Either way, the result is the same. Applicants are not getting access to information to which they are legally entitled, and the democratic process is being subverted.
In our view, the issues that have been identified and exposed as a result of the Commissioner’s investigation further confirm that law reform is necessary to fulfill FOIP’s stated goals and improve government transparency and accountability. In particular, stronger oversight and the ability for the OIPC to issue penalties could help to deter non-compliance and hold public bodies accountable. For more reading on access to information in Alberta, please see the recent ELC report Access to Information: Increasing access and disclosure around environmental decision-making.
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Your support is vital for stronger environmental legislation. As Alberta’s leading environmental charity, the Environmental Law Centre has served our community for over 40 years, providing objective guidance on crucial legislative changes. Your contribution helps protect our environment for future generations.
Please support our work: Share, engage and donate to the ELC
[1] Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, Investigation Report F2025-IR-01: Investigation into the Government of Alberta’s practices respecting access to information (Government of Alberta, May 8 2025) online (pdf): F2025-IR-01.pdf [OIPC Report].
[2] Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, Press Release, “Information and Privacy Commissioner finds Government of Alberta non-compliant in processing access to information requests under the FOIP Act” (May 9, 2025) online: oipc.ab.ca/information-and-privacy-commissioner-finds-government-of-alberta-non-compliant-in-processing-access-to-information-requests-under-the-foip-act/.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Robyn Doolittle and Tom Cardoso “How Canada’s FOI system broke under its own weight”, The Globe and Mail (June 9, 2023) online: www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-freedom-of-information-laws/#:~:text=Canada%E2%80%99s%20access%20dysfunction%2C%20in%20numbers.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Robyn Doolittle and Tom Cardoso “Alberta rejects request for data on freedom of information system a second time”, The Globe and Mail (September 26, 2023) online: www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-foi-data-accountability/ .
[7] Ibid.
[8] Robyn Doolittle and Tom Cardoso “Alberta’s information watchdog opens systemic probe into ministries’ handling of access requests”, The Globe and Mail (October 2, 2023) online: www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-information-commissioner-investigation/.
[9] OIPC Report at paras 55-56.
[10] OIPC Report at para 64.
[11] OIPC Report at para 65.
[12] OIPC Report at para 52.
[13] OIPC Report at para 63.
[14] OIPC Report at para 77.
[15] OIPC Report at para 82.
[16] OIPC Report at para 84.
[17] OIPC Report at para 107.
[18] OIPC Report at para 108.
[19] OIPC Report at para 113.
[20] OIPC Report at para 120.
[21] OIPC Report at para 120.
[22] OIPC Report at paras 127-130.
[23] OIPC Report at para 130.
[24] OIPC Report at para 129.
[25] OIPC Report at para 100.