Source: http://www.neb.gc.ca/bts/pblctn/ccssnfrmtnprvcct/2015-2016/2015-2016ccssnfrmtnct-eng.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-14 10:16:56
Document Index: 605700337

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 0', 'art 32', 'art 49', 'art 24', 'art 18', 'art 16', 'art, 0']

NEB - Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information Act - 1 April 2015 - 31 March 2016
Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information Act – 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016
Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information – 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016 [PDF 404 KB]
Highlights and Accomplishments for 2015-2016
Handling Complaints, Audits and Investigations
In accordance with section 72 of the Act, the head of every federal institution is required to submit an Annual Report to Parliament on the administration of the Act following the close of each fiscal year. The Annual Reports are then tabled in Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Act. This report describes how the National Energy Board (NEB or Board) fulfilled its access to information responsibilities during the fiscal year 2015-2016.
2. Description of Institution Structure
The ATIP Office is comprised of two permanent full-time Officers and one senior Officer on assignment from another department of the Board. The Executive Support Advisor oversees this team. In addition, the Board hired a casual employee for the last quarter of the fiscal year to assist part-time in the processing of ATIP requests. Taking into account the casual employee, the delegated authority and the Executive Support Advisor who work part-time on Access to Information, Privacy, and Parliamentary Enquiries, there are 4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in the Board’s ATIP Office.
Promoting awareness of the Access to Information Act within the organization;
Processing and managing access to information requests and complaints;
Providing advice and guidance to employees and senior officials on access related matters;
Coordinating updates to the Info Source publications;
Developing internal procedures; and
Participating in forums for the ATIP community, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat ATIP Community meetings and working groups.
Although the number of formal requests declined from 68 requests in 2014-15 to 57 in 2015-16, the number of pages processed more than doubled. Specifically, while 20,750 pages were processed in 2014-15, 50,974 pages were processed during the 2015-16 fiscal year. The number of access to information requests received and pages processed are demonstrated by the following charts:
The NEB concluded the year with 88 percent of its requests having been completed;
The NEB has remained committed to on-time performance in the face of increasing complexity and the continued high volume of requests, pages processed, and consultations received from other institutions;
Training sessions, focusing exclusively on the Access to Information Act and the NEB’s procedures for processing requests, are held annually for new staff, NEB leaders and Board Members, or more frequently as required;
Privacy Impact Summaries were added to the NEB external website with a link to Info Source;
Again this year, the Senior ATIP Officer delivered on-demand 1:1 training to various parts of the NEB, raising awareness about staff’s roles and accountabilities and providing an overview of the ATIP process; and
In In keeping with NEB’s transparency initiative, continuing to proactively post additional information on its compliance and enforcement activities with the goal of providing all relevant information in a manner that is clear and accessible.
Name of institution:National Energy Board of Canada
Received during reporting period 57
Closed during reporting period 67
Carried over to next reporting period 9
All disclosed 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4
Disclosed in part 0 4 12 17 6 4 0 43
All exempted 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
All excluded 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
No records exist 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 9
Request abandoned 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
13(1)(d) 0 16(2)(c) 7 18(d) 0 21(1)(a) 29
13(1)(e) 0 16(3) 0 18.1(1)(a) 0 21(1)(b) 26
15(1) – I.A.Table Note a 0 16.2(1) 0 20(1)(a) 1 23 14
15(1) – Def.Table Note a 0 16.3 0 20(1)(b) 4 24(1) 0
15(1) – S.A.Table Note a 0 16.4(1)(a) 0 20(1)(b.1) 0 26 1
Disclosed in part 32 11 0
All disclosed 279 279 4
Disclosed in part 49,672 41,265 43
All exempted 1,009 0 4
Request abandoned 14 14 4
All disclosed 3 67 1 212 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 24 797 10 1,194 4 1,272 4 2,270 1 35,732
All exempted 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Request abandoned 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 37 878 11 1,406 4 1,272 5 2,270 1 35,732
All disclosed 0 0 2 1 3
Disclosed in part 18 0 11 2 31
1 to 15 days 3 1 4
31 to 60 days 2 2 4
61 to 120 days 1 5 6
Disclosed in part 16 0 9 7
30 days or less 5 0 4 0
31 to 60 days 11 0 4 7
61 to 120 days 4 0 3 0
Application 62 $310 5 $25
Total 62 $310 5 $25
Received during reporting period 25 689 0 0
Outstanding from the previous reporting period 3 77 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 28 766 0 0
Disclose entirely 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 25
Salaries $262,217
Goods and Services $18,588
Total $280,805
Person Years Dedicated to
Full-time employees 2.57
Part-time and casual employees 0.08
During the reporting period, the Board received 57 requests under the Access to Information Act compared to 60 in the previous reporting period. Nineteen requests were outstanding from the previous reporting period. Of these 76 requests, 67 were completed and 9 were carried forward to the next year. Of the 9 files that were carried forward, 5 were received in March, 2016.
Of the 57 requests received, the largest number of new requests came from the media sector with a total of 33. Also, the NEB received 16 requests from the public, 4 requests from Organizations, 3 requests from the business sector and 1 from Academia.
Informal requests are those where the information requested can be processed and provided without citing the Access to Information Act but keeping within the spirit of the legislation. A request for a copy of a release package from a previously completed request listed on the NEB’s Completed Access to Information Requests web page is a common example of a request handled informally. The $5 application fee is not required. The requester needs also agree to informal treatment as the recourse of filing a complaint is not available.
There were again 28 cases of informal requests processed in 2015-2016. Of these informal requests, 22 were completed in 1-15 days, 3 were completed in 16-30 days, 2 were completed within 31-60, and 1 was completed within 121-180 days.
Of the 67 requests closed during the reporting period, the Board disclosed all documents in 4 cases; in 43 cases, documents were disclosed in part; in 4 cases all were exempted; in 3 cases all were included; and in 9 cases, no records existed. Two requests were abandoned by the applicant.
Of the four requests in which all documents were disclosed, 2 were completed within 16-30 days, 1 was completed within 31-60 days, and 1 within 121-180 days.
Of the 43 requests disclosed in part, 0 were completed in 1-15 days, 4 were completed in 16-30 days, 12 were completed in 31-60 days, 17 were completed in 61-120 days, 6 were completed in 121-180 days, and 4 were completed in 181-365 days. None required more than 365 days to complete.
There were 4 requests where all of the information was exempted. Of these, 3 requests were completed in 16-30 days and 1 request was completed within 31-60 days.
There were also 3 requests where all of the information was excluded. All 3 requests were completed in 16-30 days.
For the requests where the Board had no records, 3 of the 9 requests were completed in less than 15 days, 5 were completed in 16-30 days, and 1 was completed in 31-60 days.
In the 4 cases where requests were abandoned by the applicant with 2 being abandoned in less than 15 days, 1 within 16-30 days, and 1 within in 31-60 days.
There were no requests where the request was transferred, or where the response was to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.
16(1)(c) was invoked in 1 request
16(2)(c) was invoked in 7 requests
19(1) was invoked for 40 requests
20(1)(a) was used in 1 request
20(1)(b) was used in 4 requests
21(1)(a) was invoked for 29 requests
21(1)(b) was invoked in 26 requests
21(1)(d) was used in 1 request
23 was invoked for 14 requests
26 was invoked in 1 request.
The Access to Information Act does not apply to published material, material available to the public for purchase or for public reference (section 68). Nor does it apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council, with some exemptions (section 69). Requests containing proposed exclusions under section 69 require consultation with the Privy Council Office. There was 1 request completed during the reporting period in which exclusions were applied pursuant to section 68(a) of the Act, and no request with exclusions under section 69.
Of the 4 requests that were disclosed in their entirety, the requesters received paper copies of the information in 3 cases and in 1 case, in electronic format.
Of the 32 requests that were disclosed in part, the requesters received paper copies of the information in 32 cases and 11 cases, in electronic format.
In the 4 cases where all documents were disclosed, the NEB processed and disclosed 279 pages. In the 43 cases where documents were disclosed in part, the NEB processed 49,672 pages and disclosed 41,265 pages. In 4 cases where all the information was exempted, the NEB processed 1,009 pages. No pages were processed or disclosed in 3 cases that were deemed to be all excluded. In the 4 requests that were abandoned, the NEB processed 14 pages and disclosed 14 pages.
In the 37 instances where less than 100 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 878 pages. Where 101-500 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 1,406 pages for those 11 requests. In response to 4 requests where 501-1,000 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 1,272 pages. Five requests required the processing of 1,001-5,000 pages and, in those cases, 2,270 pages were disclosed. One request required the processing of more than 5,000 pages and, in this case, 35,732 pages were disclosed.
In certain cases, there were factors that increased the complexity of requests. In 18 cases, consultations were required, and legal advice was sought on 11 requests completed during the reporting period. Other complexities identified throughout the reporting period included 3 requests where the NEB’s IT department conducted a search of the server for potential records and 1 request where a section 44 letter was sent to clarify if a 3rd party required a judicial review.
Although the Board met its statutory deadlines most of the time, there were 17 requests that did not close within the statutory (original or extended) deadline. The reason for not meeting the deadline in 7 of those cases was due to workload volume or delays in completing the internal consultation.
There were 7 cases when no extension was taken. Of these, 3 were completed within 1-15 days, 2 were completed between 31-60 days, 1 was completed within 61-120 days, and 1 was completed 121-180 days.
In the 10 cases when the NEB responded past the deadline where an extension was taken, 1 was completed 1-15 days past the deadline, 2 were completed 16-30 days past the deadline, 2 were completed 31-60 days past the deadline, and 5 were completed 61-120 days past the deadline.
No translations were required to respond to 2015-2016 access requests.
Legal extensions were most frequently invoked to provide time to search through voluminous records and to conduct third party notifications. One extension was required where all records were disclosed.
Where records were partially disclosed, 16 extensions were taken under 9(1)(a), 9 extensions were taken under 9(1)(b) and 7 extensions were taken under 9(1)(c).
In the 2 cases where no records existed relevant to the request, the extension was taken under 9(1)(a). In the 1 case where the request was abandoned, the extension was taken under 9(1)(b).
In 20 cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(a), 5 requests required an extension of 30 days or less, 11 requests required an extension of 31-60 days, and 4 requests required an extension of 61-120 days.
In 11 cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(b), 4 required an extension of 30 days or less, 4 required an extension of 31-60 days, and 3 required an extension of 61-120 days.
All 7 cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(c) required an extension of 31-60 days.
Over the reporting period, the Board collected $310 in application fees for 62 requests. The Board waived or refunded $25 in application fees for 5 requests. Fees were waived primarily in the cases where requests were abandoned or no records were found to exist.
During the reporting period, the Board received 25 consultations from other government institutions resulting in the requirement to review 689 pages.
Three consultations received from other government institutions remained pending at the end of the reporting period, requiring 77 pages to review.
In the 25 cases where the NEB recommended that the records be disclosed entirely, 24 consultation requests were completed in 1-15 days and 1 consultation required 16-30 days to complete. In the 3 cases where the Board recommended that the records be partially disclosed, all 3 consultation requests were completed in 1-15 days.
Following consultation with NEB’s Legal Services, it was determined that a particular file did not require further consultation with the Privy Council Office.
There were no requests submitted to Privy Council Office for further consultation.
The Office of the Information Commissioner notified the NEB of 14 complaints in 2015-16 (Section 32 column) for which the NEB subsequently responded to (Section 35 column).
The Information Commissioner provided a report for two complains that had been pending from 2015-16 (Section 37 column). For both of these complaints, the complainant alleged that the NEB had improperly applied exemptions so as to unjustifiably deny access to records, or portions thereof, requested under the Act; both of these complaints were subsequently discontinued after the NEB provided a justification for the exemptions it had applied to the files. There are 12 complains received during the past fiscal year (2015-2016) that remain pending as well as eight from previous years.
Costs are only to include those related to the administration of the Access to Information Act incurred by the ATIP Office that has authority to respond to formal access to information requests. Costs do not include those that were incurred by other areas of the institution, including Offices of Primary Interest and Legal Services. The total cost for resources related to the Access to Information Act over the reporting period was $280,805.
The total amount paid for salaries of employees working in the ATIP Office on activities related to the administration of the Access to Information Act was $262,217.
The Board spent $18,588 on goods and services related to the administration of the Access to Information Act. Of that amount $7,569 was spent on professional services contracts and $11,019 was spent on other goods and services.
Over the reporting period, the NEB’s four full-time employees (three Officers and the Executive Support Advisor) dedicated the equivalent of 2.57 person years to Access to Information activities and one casual employee dedicated the equivalent of 0.08 of a person year to Access to Information activities.
Yvon Gauthier Info-Training provided a complete selection of training courses designed to increase knowledge and awareness of Access to Information and Privacy issues and legislation. The mandatory “ATIP Orientation for all NEB employees” is a half-day course that was provided in two sessions on March 8 and March 11, 2016 to 58 employees. The two-hour “ATIP – Focus on Privacy” course was offered on March 9th and was attended by 7 employees. The one-day course, “ATIP for Office of Primary Interest (OPI) Staff only” was attended by 21 employees on March 10, 2016. A special session entitled “ ATIP Orientation for Board Members” was held on March 9th and was attended by the Chair and CEO of the NEB as well as by 8 Board Members.
On March 9, 2016, a senior ATIP officer attended the “ATIP for Board Members” session delivered by Yvon Gauthier Info-Training so that NEB-specific ATIP questions could be addressed. The consultant also met informally with ATIP staff while here, to provide guidance on any difficult case files. Yvon Gauthier is also routinely contacted to provide advice and guidance as needed throughout the year.
Since a full suite of policies, procedures and guidelines directly related to access to information was rolled out in recent years, the NEB did not develop any additional ones during 2015-2016. The NEB complies with the Directive on the Administration of the Access to Information Act and all other related Treasury Board Secretariat policies, guidelines, and procedures.
During the reporting period, the ATIP Office continued to provide support and advice in the enhancement of the NEB’s proactive posting on the NEB website of information on its compliance and enforcement activities. The goal of the initiative is to provide all relevant information related to its compliance and enforcement actions in a manner that is clear and transparent. The information that is now publicly available on NEB’s website regarding compliance and enforcement activities include:
NEB Inspection Reports;
Incident Investigation Reports;
Over the past year, NEB Inspections and Incident Investigation reports have now been added to the list. These additions to the information being provided demonstrate the NEB’s commitment to transparency and public access to data.
7. Handling Complaints, Audits and Investigations
The NEB received 14 complains during the reporting period. All of these complaints were processed and responded to within the timelines provided by the Office of the Information Commissioner. Of the 14 complains, only two received a ruling from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, while 12 are still pending resolution.
The NEB has cooperated fully with the Office of Information Commissioner in the conduct of its investigations regarding complaints made against the NEB.
The NEB continues to improve the timeliness, efficiency and accuracy of responses to ATIP requests. The ATIP Office uses a database to track the process of completing requests and sends out weekly reports listing those requests outstanding. The ATIP Office staff meets weekly with the Secretary of the Board as the ATIP Coordinator, along with legal counsel and other senior management, to monitor and direct the progression of the requests. Senior management, including the Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Vice President, Law and General Counsel, are updated on a bi-weekly basis by the Secretary with respect to the status and nature of ATIP files. The Chair and CEO is kept apprised of the volume and times required to process ATIP requests.