An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

How it changed on the way

28% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (17,864 words introduced, 18,274 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent narrowed

The power to decline access requests was restricted to require the Information Commissioner's prior written approval and limited to vexatious or bad-faith cases only. New procedural rules on time-limit suspensions, publication refusals, and Privacy Commissioner consultations were inserted.

• Declining a request now requires the Commissioner's approval and applies only to vexatious requests.

  Before: “The head of a government institution may, before giving a person access to a record or refusing to do so, decline to act on the person's request if, in the opinion of the head of the institution, (a) the request does not meet the requirements set out in section 6; (b) the person has already been given access to the record or may access the record by other means; (c) the request is for such a large number of records or necessitates a search through such a large number of records that acting on the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution, even with a reasonable extension of the time limit set out in section 7; or (d) the request is vexatious, is made in bad faith or is otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records.”

  After: “With the Information Commissioner's written approval, the head of a government institution may, before giving a person access to a record or refusing to do so, decline to act on the person's request if, in the opinion of the head of the institution, the request is vexatious, is made in bad faith or is otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records.”

• A new limit prevents declining a request solely because the record will be published under Part 2.

  After: “Limitation (1.1) The head of a government institution is not author­ ized under subsection (1) to decline to act on a person's request for a record for the sole reason that the information contained in it has been published under Part 2.”

• Time limits are suspended while seeking the Commissioner's approval to decline a request.

  After: “Time limit suspended (1.2) If the head of a government institution communicates with the Information Commissioner to obtain his or her approval to decline to act, the 30-day period set out in section 7 — and any extension to it under section 9 — is suspended during the period beginning on the day on which the head of the institution communicates with the Information Commissioner and ending on the day on which he or she receives the Information Commissioner's decision in writing.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill mixes narrow definitions and fixed timelines with repeated subjective tests that turn on officials' opinions or reasonable beliefs. This leaves core access decisions open to prolonged argument rather than quick black-and-white application.

Open to argument

• “if, in the opinion of the head of the institution, the request is vexatious, is made in bad faith or is otherwise an abuse”

  The phrase relies on the head's subjective view without an objective standard.

• “the head of the institution believes on reasonable grounds that the material in the record or in part of the record will be published”

  The test hinges on the head's belief rather than a verifiable fact or fixed criterion.

• “make any order in respect of a record to which this Part applies that he or she considers appropriate”

  The power is defined by the Commissioner's personal assessment of appropriateness.

• “information the disclosure of which the Commissioner can reasonably foresee might effect a result described in paragraph 20(1)(c) or (d)”

  The threshold uses a predictive judgment that invites disagreement over what is reasonably foreseeable.

Clear-cut

• “business day means a day other than (a) a Saturday;”

  The term is defined by an exhaustive list of excluded days.

• “within 90 days after the request is made or within any further period of time that may be necessary for printing or translating the material”

  A fixed calendar period is supplied, with a narrow extension tied to printing or translation.

• “quarter means a three-month period that begins on the first day of January, April, July or October.”

  The period is defined by exact calendar start dates.

Discretion. Heads of institutions and the Information Commissioner retain wide latitude to decline requests, issue conditional orders, or withhold information on the basis of their own opinions, beliefs, or assessments of appropriateness.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective standards such as 'in the opinion of' and 'considers appropriate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person denied access or accused of improper disclosure can readily dispute whether the head's or Commissioner's subjective belief or opinion was actually formed or was reasonable.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.