Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2025 OIC 8
A federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they constituted an abuse of the right of access. The institution claimed the requests would overburden its operations, were repetitive, and were directed towards an improper purpose, such as gaining an advantage in ongoing legal proceedings. Specifically, it estimated the first request would yield one million pages and take ten years to process, and the second request sought records related to the extension claimed for the first. The Commissioner found the institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims regarding the volume of records, the impact on its resources, or the alleged repetitive nature of the requests. The Commissioner also determined there was no concrete evidence that the requests were made for an improper purpose. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application, meaning the institution must process the access requests. The Commissioner encouraged both parties to continue collaborating to reduce the volume of responsive records.
- 1Whether the access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act
- 2Whether the requests would overburden the institution's operations
- 3Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its estimated volume of records for the first access request (A-2024-00006)
- 4Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its estimated volume of records for the second access request (A-2024-00068)
- 5Whether the institution sufficiently explained the impact of processing the requests on its offices of primary interest (OPIs) and ATIP office
- 6Whether the requests would hinder other requesters' right of access
- 7Whether the requests are repetitive
- 8Whether the items within the first access request are overlapping
- 9Whether records previously in the requester's possession (either provided to the institution or obtained through prior legal proceedings) makes the request repetitive
- 10Whether the availability of alternative means of accessing information (e.g., legal proceedings) makes the request repetitive
- 11Whether the requests are directed towards a purpose other than obtaining documents or information
- 12Whether the requests were intended to overwhelm the institution's resources or gain an advantage in legal proceedings
- Abuse of right (volume): Institution failed to prove excessive volume
- Abuse of right (burden): Institution failed to prove operational burden
- Abuse of right (repetitive): Institution failed to prove repetitive nature
- Abuse of right (improper purpose): Institution failed to prove improper purpose
- Decline to act application: Application to decline to act denied
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the requests were an abuse of the right of access, specifically regarding claims of burden, repetition, or improper purpose.
- s.6.1(1) ATIA
- s.6.1(1.1) ATIA
- s.4(2.1) ATIA
- s.2(3) 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