ss.1

• The fact that a record is "unduly expensive to produce for inspection" is not grounds for extension of the 30-day deadline. (Order #P-81)

• The institution may be ordered to respond to the requester without charging a fee where the institution's time extension was clearly unreasonable and where, given the date of the appeal, the time reduction is no longer a relevant consideration. (Order #P-193)

ss.(1)(a)

• The institution must provide sufficient information to persuade the Commissioner that the number of records and the need for consultation justify the length of the extension claimed. (Order #M-1)

• The institution must provide sufficient evidence to the Commissioner to establish in precise terms why the time extension is sought. (Orders #P-193, P-197, M-581)

• The institution must do more than simply assert that satisfying the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution; it must provide evidence as to how this would occur. Moreover the institution ought to seek the extension within the 30 day time-frame of the Act. In this case despite the fact that the institution had a detailed listing of the records requested, it did not seek the time extension until after the 30 day period had elapsed and made no submissions to the Commission as to the nature and length of the searches necessary to locate the records. Consequently the institution was ordered to provide a final decision to the requester in 11 days and not to charge a fee for the processing of the request other than for photocopying charges. (Order #M-439)

• When assessing the length of the time extension, the institution must make its decision as to the amount of extra time required within the initial 30-day period prescribed by s.26 [FIPPA] \ s.19 [MFIPPA]. (Order #P-234)

• In this case, the Commission approved a 23-day extension of time regarding 3 requests involving a large number of records. The requests required that the records be carefully reviewed by individuals who were acquainted with the records. Pressing operational requirements in the institution meant that these individuals had other duties that they had to attend to in addition to processing the FIPPA request. (Order #P-517)

• A time extension was approved, because of the broad nature of the request. A large number of policies and procedures had to be reviewed in Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto, to ensure that all records responsive to the request were found. The institution noted that the individual who was most familiar with the records was based in Toronto and had to go to the other cities to review the records. The Commission affirmed that the 39-day time extension was reasonable in the circumstances. (Order #P-617)

• In this case, the Commission authorized the time extension of 30 days where the institution was able to establish that meeting the time limits of the Act would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The records included some 300 thick files and the institution indicated that the person who would understand the technical language was not always available because of staff shortages owing to holidays, social contract days and others factors. As a result, the institution's ability to search for the records took longer than envisaged by the Act. (Order #M-261)

• In this case, the Commission was not satisfied that the absence of the Director of Engineering Services for a period of three weeks was a relevant factor in determining whether the time extension was appropriate. The institution provided no explanation as to why this particular individual was required to undertake or supervise the search. In addition, some 54 days had elapsed between the time of the initial request to the commencement of the director's leave. The institution did not explain why the search did not take place prior to his or her departure or why no efforts to search had taken place. In addition, the institution failed to provide evidence of the number of records or the volume of records which must be searched. The Commission ruled that the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence that the time extension was reasonable. (Order #M-307)

• The time extension of 104 days was authorized by the Commission. The institution stated, through sworn affidavit, that because its filing system did not index cases in the way the request was framed, it would have to search all of its files during the relevant time period. The institution stated that 16,453 files would have to be searched and that it would take a staff member 15 minutes to search each file. The institution submitted that it could not devote a full-time employee to the task. (Order #P-682)

• In this case, the time extension of 104 days was not authorized by the Commission. By affidavit, the institution indicated that 467 files would have to be searched and that each file would take 15 minutes to search. The institution shared resources with another institution that received a request involving a number of files. The Commission ruled that this provision is only available for an individual request. Thus, even where institutions share resources, this section cannot be used to extend the time for responding to more than one request. Consequently, the institution was ordered to provide a decision letter regarding access to the records within 15 days of the date of the Order. (Orders #P-683, P-684)

ss.(1)(b)

• An institution cannot claim an extension of time simply because the same requester makes a number of separate requests that collectively involve a large number of records or necessitate consultation. Each request must be considered separately. An institution that is faced with a number of requests which strain its resources may: 1. negotiate with the requester who sends in numerous requests to "waive" the 30-day period or to prioritize the requests, or 2. allocate its resources so that when there is the need, additional staff can assist those who routinely work on requests. (Orders #P-28, P-93, P-100, P-174, P-175, P-176)

• The intent of the legislation is to allow for an extension of time for consultations with persons external to the institution. (Orders #P-104, P-164, P-177, P-189, P-193)

• While the Freedom of Information and Privacy Branch of Ministry of Government Services is external to the Ministry of Health and does perform a consultative role, consultations with the branch can generally be carried out within the statutory 30-day period. Requests for extensions of time must be reasonable. (Order #P-189)

• In order to ascertain the reasonableness of the request for a time extension, the institution must explain why the consultation will take the amount of time indicated. (Order #P-190)

• The institution must provide sufficient evidence as to the nature of the consultations and why it is reasonable that the consultations should take the time requested. Consultations must be initiated in a timely fashion. (Orders #P-193, P-197)

• Where an institution intends to issue interim notices, according to Order #P-81, it cannot rely on this provision. (Order #P-243)

• In this case, the Commission accepted that the extension was necessary where the request related to a branch of the institution as well as another institution and where consultations could not be completed within the Act's time frame. (Order #P-633)

ss.(2)

• There is a clear obligation on the institution to provide the requester with written notice of an extension after the 30-day period. (Order #P-72)