Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 2

Organization: A federal institutionComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, alleging the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request, and in bad faith. The institution stated the requester was a former employee who had submitted over a dozen requests under the ATIA and Privacy Act within a year, following their dismissal. The Commissioner assessed the institution's claims regarding vagueness, repetitiveness, abusive language, and safety concerns, finding insufficient evidence to support the vexatious claim. The Commissioner also found no evidence that the request diminished the rights of other requesters or impacted the institution's other duties, thus rejecting the abuse of right claim. Finally, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to prove the request was made in bad faith, noting that pursuing legal rights does not equate to bad faith. The Commissioner also found the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was denied, and the institution was required to process the request.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the request is vague
  3. 3Whether the request is repetitive with previous requests
  4. 4Whether the requester used abusive language
  5. 5Whether there are concerns for the safety of employees related to the request
  6. 6Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  7. 7Whether the request diminishes the right of access of other requesters
  8. 8Whether the request affects the institution's ability to perform its other duties and responsibilities
  9. 9Whether the access request is made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  10. 10Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • Vexatious request: Claim rejected
  • Abuse of right: Claim rejected
  • Bad faith: Claim rejected
  • Duty to assist: Institution failed to demonstrate compliance
  • Application to decline request: Application denied
  • Processing of request: Institution ordered to process request
Outcome

Section 6.1 application denied

Reasoning

The institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right of access, or made in bad faith. The Commissioner also found the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

The institution is required to process the access request.

Statutes considered
  • s.6.1(1) ATIA
  • s.4(2.1) ATIA

This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable

Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.

Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).

Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.

Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.

Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.

Upgrade to Pro