The record

2–4 September 2026 · City of Ottawa, Access to Information and Privacy Office · Flag Protocol procedures

One statute, two cities, opposite answers — and then the door closed

The City of Ottawa publishes its Flag Protocol procedures. Under the heading Legislative and Administrative Authorities, the entry reads: None. The same procedures direct that the City will not fly the flag of a group whose undertakings or philosophy are “politically or religiously motivated”. An officer of the corporation approved them in 2006 and the City Clerk revised them in 2017 and in 2020. No by-law and no recorded vote of Council appears anywhere in the record.

A records request asked on what authority that rule stands and what the symbolic displays have cost. It carried a written request to waive the fee under section 45(4) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which requires the head to waive payment where it is fair and equitable, having regard among other things to financial hardship.

Ottawa answered on 2 September:

As has been explained to you previously, the legislated $5.00 application fee for submitting an access to information request cannot be waived. As such, we are unable to process your request.

City of Ottawa, Access to Information and Privacy Office, 2 September 2026

The City of London answered a separate request under the same statute the following day:

In terms of the fee waiver for the application fee and any additional fees, our office would need documentation demonstrating financial hardship. If you have a copy of a recent tax summary, proof of income document, etc., we will review your request for a fee waiver.

City of London, 3 September 2026

One Act of Ontario, two municipalities, opposite positions. London reviews a waiver of the application fee on evidence of hardship. Ottawa states that the same waiver is impossible and closes the file.

A written request for reconsideration set out four grounds: the answer from London, the absence of any provision or criterion in Ottawa’s decision, documented hardship, and the public interest on the face of the record sought. Ottawa answered on 4 September, without addressing any of them:

You may appeal the City’s decision to the IPC. The ATIP Office will not respond to any further emails on the matter.

Access to Information and Privacy Office, Office of the City Clerk, 4 September 2026

Section 45(4) requires the head to decide whether a waiver is fair and equitable. No such decision was made, no provision was named, and no criterion was applied. The correspondence was ended instead.

Third written refusal from the same office in eight days, across three separate subjects · the rule governing municipal flagpoles still records its own legislative authority as “None”

2 September 2026 · Global Affairs Canada, Access to Information and Privacy · file A-2026-00737

The same request, two departments, two answers

A records request was filed with several federal institutions on identical terms, each carrying the same written request that the five-dollar application fee be waived.

Public Safety Canada answered on 31 August. It opened file A-2026-00209, waived the fee, set its own statutory deadline at 1 October 2026, and set out in the same letter the right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days.

Global Affairs Canada answered on 2 September on the identical request. The waiver was refused, processing would not begin until the five dollars arrived, and if the money did not arrive by 2 October the request would be treated as abandoned.

Same statute, same facts, same fee, ten days apart · the refusal was reversed the following morning after a written request for reconsideration

1 September 2026 · Global Affairs Canada · file A-2026-00736

A notice that never says when the clock started

The acknowledgement quotes the request back in full and explains the thirty-day period. Twice, where the date belongs, the letter reads:

… received on . … within 30 days of .

Acknowledgement letter, file A-2026-00736, as received

The department’s own notice does not state the day its clock began. A deadline that no document fixes is a deadline the institution can place wherever it later finds convenient. Filed as received, with the date of transmission kept, because that is now the only date either side can point to.

No correction has been issued

Standing policy · Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Department of Justice

A channel closed to the people who need it

A records request to the immigration court system returns an automatic answer:

As of December 1, 2022, EOIR no longer accepts FOIA or PA requests by email.

Automatic reply, EOIR FOIA mailbox, as received

The mailbox is read only for files already open. A person outside the United States, without an address in it, is left with the postal route and the online portal. The requester who most needs the record is the one least able to reach the counter.

Request refiled through the surviving channel · record subsequently produced: 793 pages and 11 hearing recordings