Section 24 - Time limit and notice of decision

• Overview
• Section Reference
• Summary
• Policy
• Procedure
• Interpretation
• Sectional Index of Commissioner's Orders
• Return to Manual Table of Contents

At the time of sending out third party notice, public bodies should attempt to obtain confirmation from the third party that the notification has been received and understood. 

The third party then has 20 days to submit its written representations to the public body. To ensure that the third party is given adequate opportunity to make its representations, the head's decision on access may not be made until the earlier of: 

• 21 days after the notice was given under subsection 23(1); or, 
• the day a response is received from the third party. ​

Public bodies are not required to accept a late submission from a third party [i.e., outside of the 20-day window contemplated in 23 (3) (c)] but may elect to do so, if the public body is still able to make its decision within the 30 days allowed by 24 (1). 

During the period where third party views are being sought, responsive records that were not subject to third party notice will continue to be processed; those records remain on the timeline of the original request that were established under sections 7 and 10 of FOIPPA. See further details in section 23 about how multiple timelines may be required when third party notice provisions are used. 

The head of the public body must then decide whether to give access to all or part of the record. The decision is to be made no later than 30 days after the notice has been given to the third party. This decision should consider all exceptions to disclosure within the Act, not just the three exceptions (18.1, 21, and 22) for which third-party notice may be issued. 

The fact that a third party has objected to the release of information is not sufficient grounds for information to be withheld under FOIPPA. The purpose of third-party representations is to assist the head by providing additional information and context to aid in the head’s decision-making. The decision to withhold information must always be in accordance with an exception to disclosure within the Act. 

  3. Notice of Decision to Third Party and Applicant 

When the head has made the decision on access to the record, written notice is sent to both the applicant and the third party. 

1) Head decides to deny access. The notices must:

• state that the public body has decided to deny access to the record; and 
• include information about the applicant’s right to ask the Commissioner to review the decision 

2) Head decides to give full or partial access: The notices must: 

• state that the public body has decided to grant full or partial access to the record; and  
• include information about the third party's right to ask the Commissioner to review the decision; and, 
• state that the applicant will be given access unless the third party asks for a review within 20 days from when the notice of decision is given. 

If the head decides to give full or partial access to the records, the Act does not grant any ability for the public body to bypass the 20-day period in which the third party is able to request a review. This is the case even when the third party has consented to disclosure, or when the public body and the third party agree about what severing is to be applied. 

  4. Severance 

  5. Release of Records 

Once all determinations have been made, the records are then released in the manner described in section 8 and section 9 of the manual.  

If the third party has requested a review of the public body’s decision, please see Interpretation Note below about the release of records while an OIPC review is pending. 

Interpretation 

Interpretation Note: Overall Timelines for Third Party Procedures 

The time limits under sections 23 and 24 are summarized in the following chart: 

The timelines set out in sections 23 and 24 are fixed and there is no mechanism established within the Act to formally modify or extend them.  

Note that the third party has only 20 days in which to request review of a decision under section 24, not the 30 days allowed under sections 53 or 63. It is reasonable that this period is shorter than the usual time allowed for requesting a review because the third party has already had time in which to prepare arguments on why the information should not be disclosed. 

If the third party requests a review of the public body’s decision to grant full or partial access to the records, public bodies should release any portions of the records that are not in dispute. Apply relevant severing to any information in dispute, and to any information that attracts any other exception to disclosure, but the remainder of the record should be disclosed while the OIPC review is pending. 

The leading case law on this topic was established in a 2009 BC Supreme Court judgment which found that “it is reasonable to conclude that where the records or parts of a record are subject to sections 23 and 24 (1), then once the process contemplated by those sections is complete, those portions as to which there is no dispute to be resolved by mediation or inquiry should then be produced.”