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

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 3

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. The institution argued that it had already disclosed some of the requested information to the same requester through an informal request, and processing the formal request would be duplicative. The institution sought to limit the scope of the formal request by excluding the time period covered by the informal release. However, the Commissioner found that the institution did not adequately explain how the records would be duplicates, noting that the subject matter and type of records appeared different. The Commissioner also considered that the formal request might be seeking a present-day review of redactions applied to previously released records. Crucially, the institution failed to specify which criteria under subsection 6.1(1) (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right) it was relying on, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of duplication meeting these criteria. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the application, requiring the institution to process the request.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the access request was made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  3. 3Whether the access request was an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  4. 4Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
  5. 5Whether the institution's application was complete according to OIC guidance
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • Application to decline request: Application denied
  • Justification for declining: Insufficient evidence provided by institution
  • Duplication of records: Institution failed to prove duplication
  • Processing of request: Institution required to process request
Outcome

Section 6.1 application denied

Reasoning

The institution failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the request met any of the criteria under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right). It did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the formal request was duplicative of an informal release, nor did it specify which criterion it was relying upon. The application was deemed incomplete and lacked the necessary detail for an informed decision.

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

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