I’m preparing for a job interview next week, and if I’m successful and get the job, I’ll be dealing with requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (this may be strictly a Canadian thing, I’m not sure).
Just wondering if any Dopers might know anything about this area, and if you can provide any advice.
Thanks!
S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-1/8.html
Freedom of Information Act is the US term, apparently.
Canada = Access to Information Act
Maybe start by reading up?
In my province it is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but thanks for your help jdc.
Which province?
And which sector: govt municipal, govt prov., govt fed, private non-profit, private profit?
or medical? (Whoops, hit enter too soon)
And if private for profit sector, is it in provincially regulated or federally regulated?
Muffin, in my experience, “FOIPP Act” is the name that provinces/territories use for their legislation. The feds have two separate Acts: the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Since Stainz refers to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that sounds like a provincial/territorial government.
FOIPP Acts usually only apply to the provincial/territorial government. There’s usually a separate one for local governments, a separate one again for health institutes and personal health care info, and a separate one for private sector. If there’s no provincial legislation governing the private sector in a province, then the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act applies by default. Is it different in Ontario?
Stainz, you’ll likely be able to find a copy of the Act for your province at the Canadian Legal Information Institute site. There are two basic principles to most FOIPPA - a citizen has the right to request copies of documents held by the provincial/territorial government, subject to certain exceptions (the Freedom of Information part), and a citizen also has the right to have governments keep personal information about the citizen confidential (the Protection of Privacy part).
Usually, an FOI request can be made to any office of a government, but each department is required to have a central office to handle all requests received. The legislation usually establishes clear timelines for the government to process requests. Requests that won’t take very long to complete are often handled free, but if a request will require a substantial amount of time to find all the documents and copy them, the person making the request may have to pay a fee for the search and copying.
Governments can decline to provide certain types of information, if the Act gives a clear exception. The most obvious one is someone else’s personal information: you can’t ask to find out if Northern Piper has ever been on welfare, for example, because it would breach the Protection of Privacy principle to hand out that information to anyone but me. There are other exceptions, such as information related to police investigations, legal opinions, information exchanged in confidence betweeen governments, and so on.
If you’re not happy with the way the government has responded to your request, you can ask the Freedom of Information Commissioner (or equivalent in your jurisdiction) to review the response. In some jurisidctions, the Commissioner may only have a persuasive/ombudsman type power, but in other jurisdictions, the Commissioner may be able to order the government to make further disclosure, or may have the power to go to court on your behalf.
That’s just a very thumbnail sketch, and is not intended in any way as legal advice. Exactly how it all works in your jurisdiction will depend on the law in that jurisdiction. You could go to the website for the provincial/territorial government and see if they have a webpage for the FOI Commissioner. You could also try googling it.
Sorry - I punched “reply” too quickly. I meant to say that since Stainz refers to “Freedom of Information Act” I would take it to mean provincial/territorial, not federal. The full name of provincial / territorial legislation is often FOIPP Act.
Yup (although Quebec is challenging the constitutionality). PIPEDA is new to most business in Ontario, so I’ve held a couple of seminars on it here in the north-west.
Arrrgh! Not yup it is different in Ontario, but rather yup it is the same in Ontario. PIPEDA applies to Ontario because Ontario does not have substantially similar legislation of its own. (Sorry, but as you can tell, my mind has dribbled onto the floor.)
If you are staying in BC, then what you need to know can be found at http://www.oipc.bc.ca/
Just drill down via sector type.
Wow … thanks all, yes I’m in BC and yes it’s a provincial gov’t position.
Do any of you KNOW anyone who deals with/responds to FOI requests? I’m curious about that end of things as well.
Thanks!
S.
Sorry, but I’m from Ontario, so I don’t have any contacts for you 
.
If you are responding to FOI requests, you must deal with them within 30 days (but a further 30 days extension is often possible – longer extensions need permission of the Privacy Commission).
In general, you must give out government information if (and that is a huge “if”) it will not cause any harm to the government, to government negotiations, to law enforcement, or to private individuals or businesses, but you must receive permission from 3rd parties such as private individuals or businesses before giving out information pertaining to them.
If a request for information can not be dealt with satisfactorily, then it can go before the Privacy Commission for a hearing.
Go through the web site I set out in a previous post.
Read the Act. Read the Act. Read the Act. And when you are done, read the Act.
Here are some excerpts from various sections of the act that should help get you started. They form the backbone of the law with respect to figuring out what should and should not be handed over. Once you are comfortable with these parts of sections, then read the whole act a few times.
Don’t hesitate to ask questions, for although I usually deal with Ontario law, what we have in Ontario is substantially similar to the BC law.
Information rights
4 (1) A person who makes a request under section 5 has a right of access to any record in the custody or under the control of a public body, including a record containing personal information about the applicant.
(2) The right of access to a record does not extend to information excepted from disclosure under Division 2 of this Part, but if that information can reasonably be severed from a record an applicant has the right of access to the remainder of the record.
(3) The right of access to a record is subject to the payment of any fee required under section 75.
Duty to assist applicants
6 (1) The head of a public body must make every reasonable effort to assist applicants and to respond without delay to each applicant openly, accurately and completely.
7 (1) Subject to this section and sections 23 and 24 (1), the head of a public body must respond not later than 30 days after receiving a request described in section 5 (1).
10 (1) The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request for up to 30 days or, with the commissioner’s permission, for a longer period if
(a) the applicant does not give enough detail to enable the public body to identify a requested record,
(b) a large number of records is requested or must be searched and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body, or
(c) more time is needed to consult with a third party or other public body before the head can decide whether or not to give the applicant access to a requested record.
Cabinet and local public body confidences
12 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or any of its committees, including any advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Executive Council or any of its committees.
Policy advice or recommendations
13 (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister.
(2) The head of a public body must not refuse to disclose under subsection (1)
(a) any factual material,
(b) a public opinion poll,
(c) a statistical survey,
(d) an appraisal,
(e) an economic forecast,
(f) an environmental impact statement or similar information,
(g) a final report or final audit on the performance or efficiency of a public body or on any of its programs or policies,
(h) a consumer test report or a report of a test carried out on a product to test equipment of the public body,
(i) a feasibility or technical study, including a cost estimate, relating to a policy or project of the public body,
(j) a report on the results of field research undertaken before a policy proposal is formulated,
(k) a report of a task force, committee, council or similar body that has been established to consider any matter and make reports or recommendations to a public body,
(l) a plan or proposal to establish a new program or to change a program, if the plan or proposal has been approved or rejected by the head of the public body,
(m) information that the head of the public body has cited publicly as the basis for making a decision or formulating a policy, or
(n) a decision, including reasons, that is made in the exercise of a discretionary power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of the applicant.
Legal advice
14 The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that is subject to solicitor client privilege.
Disclosure harmful to law enforcement
15 (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
(a) harm a law enforcement matter,
(b) prejudice the defence of Canada or of any foreign state allied to or associated with Canada or harm the detection, prevention or suppression of espionage, sabotage or terrorism,
(c) harm the effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures currently used, or likely to be used, in law enforcement,
(d) reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information,
(e) reveal criminal intelligence that has a reasonable connection with the detection, prevention or suppression of organized criminal activities or of serious and repetitive criminal activities,
(f) endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person,
(g) reveal any information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,
(h) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication,
(i) reveal a record that has been confiscated from a person by a peace officer in accordance with an enactment,
(j) facilitate the escape from custody of a person who is under lawful detention,
(k) facilitate the commission of an offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada, or
(l) harm the security of any property or system, including a building, a vehicle, a computer system or a communications system.
(2) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the information
(a) is in a law enforcement record and the disclosure would be an offence under an Act of Parliament,
(b) is in a law enforcement record and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose to civil liability the author of the record or a person who has been quoted or paraphrased in the record, or
(c) is about the history, supervision or release of a person who is in custody or under supervision and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the proper custody or supervision of that person.
(3) The head of a public body must not refuse to disclose under this section
(a) a report prepared in the course of routine inspections by an agency that is authorized to enforce compliance with an Act,
(b) a report, including statistical analysis, on the degree of success achieved in a law enforcement program unless disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to interfere with or harm any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), or
(c) statistical information on decisions under the Crown Counsel Act to approve or not to approve prosecutions.
(4) The head of a public body must not refuse, after a police investigation is completed, to disclose under this section the reasons for a decision not to prosecute
(a) to a person who knew of and was significantly interested in the investigation, including a victim or a relative or friend of a victim, or
(b) to any other member of the public, if the fact of the investigation was made public.
Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
16 (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
(a) harm the conduct by the government of British Columbia of relations between that government and any of the following or their agencies:
17 (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to harm the financial or economic interests of a public body or the government of British Columbia or the ability of that government to manage the economy, including the following information:
(a) trade secrets of a public body or the government of British Columbia;
(b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a public body or to the government of British Columbia and that has, or is reasonably likely to have, monetary value;
(c) plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body and that have not yet been implemented or made public;
(d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in the premature disclosure of a proposal or project or in undue financial loss or gain to a third party;
(e) information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body or the government of British Columbia.
Disclosure harmful to individual or public safety
19 (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information, including personal information about the applicant, if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
(a) threaten anyone else’s safety or mental or physical health, or
(b) interfere with public safety.
(2) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant personal information about the applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in immediate and grave harm to the applicant’s safety or mental or physical health.
Disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party
21 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information
(a) that would reveal
(i) trade secrets of a third party, or
(ii) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information of or about a third party,
(b) that is supplied, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence, and
(c) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to
(i) harm significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the negotiating position of the third party,
(ii) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the public body when it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be supplied,
(iii) result in undue financial loss or gain to any person or organization, or
(iv) reveal information supplied to, or the report of, an arbitrator, mediator, labour relations officer or other person or body appointed to resolve or inquire into a labour relations dispute.
(2) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information that was obtained on a tax return or gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability or collecting a tax.
Disclosure harmful to personal privacy
22 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.
(2) In determining under subsection (1) or (3) whether a disclosure of personal information constitutes an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy, the head of a public body must consider all the relevant circumstances, including whether
(a) the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of British Columbia or a public body to public scrutiny,
(b) the disclosure is likely to promote public health and safety or to promote the protection of the environment,
(c) the personal information is relevant to a fair determination of the applicant’s rights,
(d) the disclosure will assist in researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of aboriginal people,
(e) the third party will be exposed unfairly to financial or other harm,
(f) the personal information has been supplied in confidence,
(g) the personal information is likely to be inaccurate or unreliable, and
(h) the disclosure may unfairly damage the reputation of any person referred to in the record requested by the applicant.
(3) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(a) the personal information relates to a medical, psychiatric or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment or evaluation,
(b) the personal information was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation,
(c) the personal information relates to eligibility for income assistance or social service benefits or to the determination of benefit levels,
(d) the personal information relates to employment, occupational or educational history,
(e) the personal information was obtained on a tax return or gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax,
(f) the personal information describes the third party’s finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness,
(g) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations about the third party,
(h) the disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal that the third party supplied, in confidence, a personal recommendation or evaluation, character reference or personnel evaluation,
(i) the personal information indicates the third party’s racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or religious or political beliefs or associations, or
(j) the personal information consists of the third party’s name, address, or telephone number and is to be used for mailing lists or solicitations by telephone or other means.
(4) A disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(a) the third party has, in writing, consented to or requested the disclosure,
(b) there are compelling circumstances affecting anyone’s health or safety and notice of disclosure is mailed to the last known address of the third party,
(c) an enactment of British Columbia or Canada authorizes the disclosure,
(d) the disclosure is for a research or statistical purpose and is in accordance with section 35,
(e) the information is about the third party’s position, functions or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body or as a member of a minister’s staff,
(f) the disclosure reveals financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body,
(g) public access to the information is provided under the Financial Information Act,
(h) the information is about expenses incurred by the third party while travelling at the expense of a public body,
(i) the disclosure reveals details of a licence, permit or other similar discretionary benefit granted to the third party by a public body, not including personal information supplied in support of the application for the benefit, or
(j) the disclosure reveals details of a discretionary benefit of a financial nature granted to the third party by a public body, not including personal information that is supplied in support of the application for the benefit or is referred to in subsection (3) (c).
(5) On refusing, under this section, to disclose personal information supplied in confidence about an applicant, the head of the public body must give the applicant a summary of the information unless the summary cannot be prepared without disclosing the identity of a third party who supplied the personal information.
(6) The head of the public body may allow the third party to prepare the summary of personal information under subsection (5).
Notifying the third party
23 (1) If the head of a public body intends to give access to a record that the head has reason to believe contains information that might be excepted from disclosure under section 21 or 22, the head must give the third party a written notice under subsection (3).
Do you have any specific questions, Stainz? I could try to answer.
Thanks all, esp. NorthernPiper and Muffin.
The job would be actually responding to requests for Information. I’m wondering what qualities are the most useful in that type of job - obviously accuracy, efficiency, etc …
I’m very stoked about this interview and I am trying everything I can think of to be prepared.
S.
Stainz,
Here are two Saskatchewan-based links that may be of some use to you:
Report of the Saskatchewan Provincial Auditor on Privacy. The auditor’s report speaks about what privacy is, its importance and the inter-relationship between it and legislation such as The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
and a brief summary off the Saskatchewan government pages about the Privacy Commissioner.
I also found the home page for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in B.C. which you may want to check out. It seems to have a fair amount of information that could be of use to you in prepping for an interview. Good luck.
Thanks for the good wishes and the Saskatchewan info PastAllReason …
I’m going to try to speak with someone at work who currently helps with FOI requests and see what kind of requests we get and how they’re handled.
I’m nervous … 
… but thanks to everyone’s help at least I can feel a bit more prepared!
I used to request FOIA documents when I worked for a company that maintained the Kuwaiti air force during the first desert war.
The information was frequently “magic markered” out (partially, anyway). We would request RFPs and what have you. Sometimes you have to pay and sometimes you don’t. The thing that amazed me the most was that the government is behind the times with regard to technology. Things are requested and delivered on PAPER instead of electronically.
Good luck!
Stainz, from a technical perspective, I would say there are two important factors: you need to know your legislation, and you need to be efficient at processing the requests. Answering an FOI request isn’t “when I get around to it”. The Acts usually set out very clear timetables for the reply process, and you have to make those deadlines consistently. That means that you have to be able to assess how much work it is to find the document(s) being requested; how much time it will take to collect them, if they’re located in more than one office; and how much work and time it is to copy the documents. Since the target of an FOI request can range from one page to thousands of documents, this sort of prioritization is very important.
You also need to know the Act’s requirements. The general principle is access, but the Act will set out the process by which that access is ensured. You also need to know the privacy protections for individuals, and how they work together.
That’s on the technical side. The more important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is the attitude you bring to it. FOI Acts exist because the elected representatives have recognized that the people have the right to see the documents that the government generates, and have written that right into law. Those laws recognise that government documents are public property, and we’re all the owners. The basic imperative of FOI is access, access, access. True, there are exceptions, but they should not be the driving force of the Act. Access is the key, non-disclosure is the exception. An access officer’s job is to make sure the public has access, as the statute mandates.
So, if you get the job, remember that your job is to provide access to the documents, even if it might be embarrassing to the government, or to the department, or to people you work with. If you’ve been following the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, you may have noticed that the witnesses who are coming across best are the public servants who did their jobs right, who asked questions, who insisted on procedures being followed. That’s the kind of public servant we need, especially in a job that’s intended to make sure the public see public documents.