
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2021 OIC 23
An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they were vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access. The institution also claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the requests were vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access. Specifically, the Commissioner found no evidence of duplication, improper motive, or undue burden. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate it had met its duty to assist obligations before seeking approval to decline the requests. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application, requiring it to process the access requests.
- 1Whether the requests were vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
- 2Whether the requests were made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
- 3Whether the requests constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
- 4Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under s.4(2.1) ATIA
- Vexatious request: Institution's claim denied
- Bad faith request: Institution's claim denied
- Abuse of right of access: Institution's claim denied
- Duty to assist: Institution failed to meet obligations
- Application to decline to act: Application denied
- Processing of requests: Institution ordered to process requests
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims that the requests were vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also found that the institution did not demonstrate it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to making the application.
The institution is required to act on the access requests.
- s.6.1(1) ATIA
- s.4(2.1) ATIA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
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