City of Ottawa
One statute, two cities, opposite answers — and then the door closed
Answer 2 Sept In writing.
The answer in full
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.