Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Granted (refusal authorized)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2020 OIC 17

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

An unnamed federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, alleging it was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The institution stated the requester had submitted 893 requests over 17 years, many closely related, due to dissatisfaction with how the institution handled their affairs. The Commissioner considered the definition of "vexatious" and "abuse of right," drawing on jurisprudence from other Canadian jurisdictions. The Commissioner found 11 of the requester's prior requests were duplicative or substantially similar, rejecting the requester's arguments for their necessity. Ultimately, the Commissioner concluded that the request was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access, citing the large volume of requests, their repetitive nature, and recurring complaints to the OIC. The application was granted, allowing the institution to decline to act on the request.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  2. 2Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  3. 3Whether the request is duplicative or substantially similar to previous requests
  4. 4Whether the volume of requests, combined with other factors, supports a finding of abuse of right
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Vexatious request: Request deemed vexatious
  • Abuse of right: Request deemed abuse of right
  • Decline to act: Application to decline granted
Outcome

Section 6.1 application granted

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that the institution established, on a balance of probabilities, that the request was vexatious due to its repetitive nature and lack of new circumstances. The Commissioner also found the request constituted an abuse of the right of access, considering the large volume of requests, their repetitive nature despite prior advice that no records existed, and recurring complaints to the OIC.

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