chief_of_da_fence
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 130
What are the consequences for a member that intentionally doesn't provide the information requested in an ATIP request.
Access to information question
- Thread starter chief_of_da_fence
- Start date
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Obstructing right of access
67.1 (1) No person shall, with intent to deny a right of access under this Part,- (a) destroy, mutilate or alter a record;
- (b) falsify a record or make a false record;
- (c) conceal a record; or
- (d) direct, propose, counsel or cause any person in any manner to do anything mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
- Offence and punishment
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of
- (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to both; or
- (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
Is there any case law in this space?
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
I would want a little more context or information. Is the record in question in the exclusive custody of the member, or is the member an employee of a section, branch, area, etc. the holds the record? For example, a police officer's notebooks are public records in their exclusive custody. An incident report lies in a filing cabinet that someone is responsible for managing (a tad dated, but you get the idea).
I would also want a 'why'. Is the member simply non-responsive or have they said 'I'm not providing that'?
To be successful under 67.1 that OGBD cited, you would need evidence of both 'intent to deny' and 'concealment' (or destruction or alteration). Simply being a dunderhead, inefficient, overworked, etc. wouldn't rise to to charge-worthy level.
I would also want a 'why'. Is the member simply non-responsive or have they said 'I'm not providing that'?
To be successful under 67.1 that OGBD cited, you would need evidence of both 'intent to deny' and 'concealment' (or destruction or alteration). Simply being a dunderhead, inefficient, overworked, etc. wouldn't rise to to charge-worthy level.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
When has being a dunderhead, inefficient or overworked civil servant ever risen to a charge-worthy level? 
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
In TC, the ATIP Officer would be assigned the request. Send it to the relevant programs and give a timeline for responses. We would do a record search, provide what information fell into the request, highlighting important stuff like personal information, confidential FN consulting material, Cabinet privilege or information from another department. That goes to the ATIP officer for review, then release to the requestor. So I would first ask the ATIP Officer responsible for the request for why something was excluded?
We took ATIP requests very seriously and dealt with them on a regular basis.
We took ATIP requests very seriously and dealt with them on a regular basis.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
One problem Defence has is that it's Big. Really, really big. And the intake personnel may not have a great deal of organizational knowledge. So relevant parts of the defence enterprise may never be tasked to respond - because an entry level analyst didn't know that an organization had any relevant functions.
Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 157
- Points
- 630
Never advisable to deliberately omit something from an ATIP response. Folks aren't idiots - they often know exactly who has what, they just want a copy of it. And, imagine its an email, and everyone else submits their copy - the recipient will see exactly who was on the distribution, and question why they didn't get anything from one recipient. The follow-on would not be something I want to deal with.
I would wonder though, if somebody is bound to provide information that directly opens them to administrative, or disciplinary measures - i.e. are you required to incriminate yourself?
I would wonder though, if somebody is bound to provide information that directly opens them to administrative, or disciplinary measures - i.e. are you required to incriminate yourself?
Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 157
- Points
- 630
I've also had Ministerial Inquiries and ATIP from people who must be very seriously mentally ill - and you have X number of days to provide an answer. I've fired back on a few that there is no possible answer as the question is the ramblings of a very ill individual. I really wish there was some better screening at the point of entry into the system.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
"Justify in writing why you don't have anything to respond to this ATIP" is a personal favorite.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Points
- 1,160
Interference with Access to Information: Part 1
March 11, 2011 Download PDF version
And what the OIC thinks about "declining to act on a request" - some
, some 
Decisions
The Information Commissioner publishes the final reports on her investigations on this website when she deems them to be of value in providing guidance to both institutions and complainants. The Office of the Information Commissioner has established the Decisions Database to enable users to...
Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 157
- Points
- 630
I've been a smart ass lately and answered a few with 'We have nothing because there was never anything to have.' So far nobody has come back after me yet. I suspect they received a similar answer from almost everybody it was sent to. They should have been narrow-focus ATIP, but the net was cast as wide as possible.
Is it wrong to wonder if some ATIP are created by bad actors from foreign organizations? Perhaps to find information carelessly released, or to tie down our system and frustrate people.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
I've occasionally thought to ruin someone's day by asking some very specific questions that I know will take a lot of time for them to answer, but I don't dislike anyone enough to bother.
With the ATIPs I've seen from average Canadians I don't think we need foreign organizations involved to ask some really stupid questions. Some of the questions from Parliament are only marginally better.
- Reaction score
- 17,068
- Points
- 1,010
I wondered about that, too…
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
The question is whether the number of external bad faith actors seeking information is greater or less than the number of internal bad faith actors trying to suppress information.
- Reaction score
- 17,068
- Points
- 1,010
In my experience (and I deal with a fair number of ATIs), the vast majority are just…mystifying. Like, there is no way to actually answer the question. Some just don’t apply to us (an analyst just shotguns out the request to mutliple units, regardless of the relevance to their day-to-day operations). Some are so broad, that to answer them fully would require me to work until the heat death of the universe.
A very few are well bounded in time and space and are a delight to answer.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
If personal devices / personal accounts are used then they are subject. If you use D365 instead of a personal email / personal phone # for texting, then the records are properly held & retained.
Correct and team chats, facebook messenger, etc. Many public bodies have a print to paper policy of texts for records retention. Not sure of the reason to respond why you would not have records but it may be to demonstrate the scope of the search. Been doing ATI, provincial level, for over a decade and I know people cringe when we call.
Similar threads
