
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2023 OIC 48
An 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, arguing the request was both an abuse of the right to make a request and vexatious. The request sought emails from three employees containing specific keywords and the HR file of one employee. The institution claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester by engaging in numerous communications to clarify and narrow the request. The Commissioner found that the institution had indeed made every reasonable effort to assist the requester. However, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access or was vexatious. The Commissioner noted that seeking information related to government employees is not inherently abusive and that the institution did not adequately substantiate claims of undue burden or privacy invasion. Consequently, the application to decline to act on the request was denied.
- 1Whether the institution met its obligation to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
- 2Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
- 3Whether the access request is vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
- Duty to assist: Institution fulfilled duty to assist
- Abuse of right of access: Institution failed to prove abuse of right
- Vexatious request: Institution failed to prove request was vexatious
- Decline to act application: Application to decline to act denied
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that the request was vexatious or an abuse of the right to make a request. The Commissioner found that seeking information related to government employees is not inherently abusive and that the institution did not adequately substantiate its claims of undue burden or privacy invasion. The institution did, however, meet its duty to assist.
The institution must process the access request.
- 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