
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2023 OIC 12
A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two access to information requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the requester submitted a high volume of requests, refused to narrow their scope, and engaged in intimidating communications, thereby diverting public resources and harassing the department. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to fulfill its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, as its communication was solely aimed at reducing scope without offering other assistance. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution did not provide clear and compelling evidence to support its claims that the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner denied the institution's application, requiring it to process the access requests.
- 1Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act
- 2Whether the access requests were vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act
- 3Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act
- Duty to assist: Institution failed to fulfill duty to assist
- Vexatious request: Institution failed to provide evidence of vexatious request
- Abuse of right of access: Institution failed to provide evidence of abuse of right of access
- Decline to act application: Application to decline to act denied
- Processing of requests: Institution required to process requests
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right of access, and it did not fulfill its duty to assist the requester.
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