
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2025 OIC 47
An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, seeking approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued the request was vexatious, made to seek retribution, bully, or circumvent an investigation, citing the requester's prior communications, refusal to narrow the request, and the timing and content of the request. The access request sought all emails, Teams messages, and iMessages from three ATIP office employees over a three-day period, regardless of subject matter. The Commissioner found that the institution did not establish that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner interpreted the requester's communications as indicating an intent to file an OIC complaint, not to bully or seek retribution, and found the refusal to narrow the scope plausible given the requester's stated interest in the ATIP office's deliberations. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.
- 1Whether the access request was vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
- 2Whether the requester's email stating 'further action will be taken' indicated a vexatious purpose
- 3Whether the requester's refusal to narrow the scope of the request indicated a vexatious purpose
- 4Whether the requester's email stating intent to contact the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner indicated a vexatious purpose
- 5Whether the content of the access request (seeking emails of ATIP employees) indicated a vexatious purpose
- 6Whether the timing of the access request indicated a vexatious purpose
- 7Whether there was a conflict of interest in the institution's application
- Vexatious request: Institution's claim of vexatious request rejected
- Application to decline request: Institution's application denied
Section 6.1 application denied
The Commissioner found that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was vexatious. The requester's actions and communications were interpreted as legitimate attempts to assert their rights and obtain information related to the institution's deliberations, rather than an intent to harass, bully, or seek retribution. The Commissioner found the requester's explanations for the scope and timing of the request to be plausible.
The institution must process the access request.
- s.6.1(1) ATIA
- s.6.1(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