
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 24
An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought all Microsoft Teams messages from EX-1 level employees and above, along with Teams usage policies and activity reports, for a specific timeframe. The institution claimed the request would be "operationally catastrophic" due to the estimated volume of messages and its limited ATIP capacity. However, the Commissioner found the institution's evidence, particularly its estimation of message volume based on a global report rather than actual Teams data, to be unreliable and inflated. The Commissioner also noted that the institution's limited ATIP capacity, while acknowledged, does not automatically render a request abusive. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access.
- 1Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1)(c) ATIA
- 2Whether the institution's estimate of responsive records was reliable
- 3Whether the institution's ATIP capacity limitations justify declining to act on the request
- Abuse of right of access: Institution failed to demonstrate abuse
- Evidence for message volume: Institution's evidence found unreliable
- Impact of ATIP capacity: Limited capacity does not automatically render request abusive
Section 6.1 application denied
The institution failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that the access request was an abuse of the right of access. Its estimation of record volume was unreliable, and its limited ATIP capacity does not, by itself, make a request abusive.
- 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