What Bill 97 did: Exempted the Premier's office, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants, and their staff from FIPPA — retroactively to 1988. Extended response timelines. Created staged access plans. Enhanced fee mechanisms.
What it didn't do: Change how the statute operates for every other institution. The timeline rules, fee appeal rights, deemed refusal provisions, and IPC appeal mechanisms remain in force. This document maps what requesters can still do with them.
Section 01
Response Timelines
→
Track calendar vs. business days precisely. 30 business days equals approximately 42 calendar days. Institutions that conflate the two are non-compliant from day one.
FIPPA s. 26, 27
→
Appeal any extension lacking reasonable grounds immediately. "Reasonable grounds" is a statutory standard, not institutional discretion. Extensions that don't meet it are appealable to the IPC without waiting for final response.
FIPPA s. 27
→
Treat unreasonable delay as deemed refusal. When an institution fails to respond within the statutory window without a valid extension, the request is deemed refused. Deemed refusal triggers an immediate right of appeal to the IPC.
FIPPA s. 29, 39, 41
→
Claim urgent public interest for active accountability files. Greenbelt follow-ups and cellphone case records have documented precedents for urgency arguments. File the claim in writing with the request.
FIPPA s. 5, 21
Section 02
Staged Access Plans
→
Staged plans are a new institutional tool — and rejectable. Bill 97 lets institutions propose releasing records in stages. Any stage longer than 30 days or carrying excessive fees can be appealed as a deemed refusal.
New FIPPA s. 26.1
→
Demand a full record index upfront. An institution proposing staged release must disclose what records exist. Demand the full index before agreeing to any plan. Piecemeal disclosure of the index itself is not compliant.
New FIPPA s. 26.1
→
Appeal unreasonable staged proposals as deemed refusal. A staged plan designed to delay rather than manage genuine volume is an abuse of the provision. Document the pattern across requests to support an IPC complaint.
New FIPPA s. 26.1; IPC appeal jurisdiction
Section 03
Fee Contestation
→
Fee estimates over $25 are appealable. Don't pay before appealing. Demand a detailed breakdown of how the estimate was calculated before any fee is paid. Vague or padded estimates are IPC complaints.
FIPPA s. 57
→
NGOs and community groups can claim economic hardship waivers. The waiver is available to requesters for whom the fee would cause economic hardship. Apply in writing with the initial request or on receipt of the estimate.
FIPPA s. 57(4)
→
Public interest fee waivers have established precedent. Where disclosure serves a public interest that outweighs the institution's financial interest in collecting the fee, waiver is available. Cite IPC precedents when filing.
FIPPA s. 57(4)(c); IPC Orders
→
Track total fees across a pattern of requests. Aggregate fee data across multiple requesters and institutions supports an abuse argument. Document and publish the pattern.
IPC complaint jurisdiction
Section 04
Ministerial Exclusion Gaps
→
File pre-enactment requests now. Retroactivity applies differently to requests already in flight. File Greenbelt follow-ups, cellphone case-adjacent requests, and any other active accountability files immediately. The exclusion's retroactive reach is not unlimited.
New FIPPA s. 65(18)–(19)
→
Challenge "ministerial record" claims on custody and function. The exclusion covers records in the custody or control of a ministerial office. Records held by a ministry that serve a ministry function — not a minister's political office — are not automatically excluded. The IPC has applied a custody/function test case by case. Institutions overclaim. Push back.
FIPPA s. 10, s. 65(18); IPC Orders
→
Judicial review is available for Charter overreach. Where the exclusion removes the only source of public interest information, a s. 2(b) derivative access challenge is arguable. The retroactive voiding of live court orders raises a separate rule of law ground.
Charter s. 2(b); rule of law
Section 05
Filing Strategy
→
File surgical requests. One request per developer parcel, per donation record, per calendar entry, per meeting. Narrow scope eliminates the surface area for vexatious claims and forces disclosure of specific records officials assumed would remain obscure.
→
Document public interest purpose in every request. State the purpose in the cover letter. Clear public interest documentation defeats bad faith arguments and supports fee waivers, urgency claims, and vexatious defences simultaneously.
→
Coordinate across requesters. Media organizations, NGOs, and individual requesters filing separate but complementary requests prevents any single requester from accumulating a vexatious profile. Each request stands alone. The pattern doesn't.
FIPPA s. 10(1)(b) vexatious test
→
Vexatious designations require statutory proof. Bad faith. No reasonable basis. Abuse of the right of access. Narrow requests with documented public interest purpose don't meet the test. Politically motivated vexatious findings are judicially reviewable.
FIPPA s. 10(1)(b); judicial review
Status: Latent
Parliamentary Override
Legislative committees retain the power to order production of records under the Legislative Assembly Act s. 35. The mechanism exists. A PC majority blocks any motion to compel production in the current parliament.
The next government (2030) inherits a loaded gun. The Greenbelt records gap, the cellphone case record, and the full documentary vacuum created by Bill 97 will still be there. Production orders don't expire with the parliament that couldn't pass them.
The floor
is still open
They changed who is covered.
They did not change how the statute works for everyone else.
All items sourced from statutory text and IPC bulletins.
thedelusioneers.ca ·
Substack · @the_delusioneers