The Northwest Territories’ information and privacy commissioner ordered three territorial ministers to respond without delay to an access request that had been outstanding for more than 19 months when he issued his September 2, 2026 decision.
In Department of Finance, Department of Infrastructure, and Department of Health and Social Services (Re), 2026 NTIPC 155, commissioner Andrew E. Fox found that the departments’ failure to respond within the statutory time limit amounted to deemed refusals of access.
The ruling addressed a long-running backlog at the government’s Access and Privacy Office. It also used the commissioner’s power to initiate a review even though the applicant’s time to request one had expired.
Assurances did not produce a response
The applicant submitted the request on January 29, 2025. It was divided among Finance, Infrastructure, and Health and Social Services. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act ordinarily required a response within 20 business days.
Acting for the departments, the Access and Privacy Office told the applicant on February 7 that responsive records would be provided by February 26. That date passed without any records being delivered.
When the applicant sought an update in August 2025, the office said the Finance and Health and Social Services portions would be ready for approval by the departments’ heads the following week. The Infrastructure portion had not yet been reviewed because of the volume of requests being processed.
The applicant sought another update in July 2026 but received no reply. After the applicant contacted the commissioner’s office on August 14, the Access and Privacy Office confirmed that all three responses remained outstanding.
In its August 28 submissions, the office acknowledged the delay and attributed it to the large volume of requests. It said it did not intend to deny the applicant the records. Fox described the backlog as a chronic, long-term problem. None of the departments had responded by the September 2 decision.
Commissioner initiated the review
Fox first addressed his authority to consider the matter. He found that the applicant’s statutory time to request a review had expired, but section 28(3) allowed him to initiate a review without a formal request.
He considered it appropriate to do so in these circumstances. The responses were already substantially overdue, the applicant had sought updates, and the office continued to say it intended to respond while citing its backlog.
The Act treats a failure to respond on time as a decision refusing access. It also provides a mechanism for extending the response period where a large volume of records must be retrieved or searched and meeting the deadline would unreasonably interfere with the public body’s operations.
None of the departments had taken an extension, however, and none had asked the commissioner to authorize additional time. Fox said the failure to seek an extension was unexplained.
Responses required without delay
Fox ordered the ministers of Finance, Infrastructure, and Health and Social Services to provide their responses to the January 29 request without delay.
He separately required them to notify him of the steps taken to comply and when the records had been delivered. That report was due within 20 business days after the ministers received the review report and order—not 20 business days from the decision’s date.
The order was not an unconditional direction to release every record. Fox expressly made the applicant’s access entitlement subject to the exceptions in Division B of Part 1 of the Act. The ruling did not award damages.
The report included notice of the statutory appeal route for a public-body head to the Northwest Territories Supreme Court, with a 20-business-day period running from the public body’s receipt of the report and order.
The decision records the situation as of September 2. It does not establish whether the departments delivered their responses afterward.
