The catalogueFederal (Canada)
Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — each with an AI-generated plain-language summary for every ruling.

3 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Nov 1, 20242024 OIC 78Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 78

A federal institution

A federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the request, for emails and chat messages from a specific office over a two-month period, was too broad and would result in over 75,800 pages, taking an estimated 12.6 years to process. It argued this would severely disrupt its operations, particularly a small office with limited resources, and hinder its ATIP office's ability to respond to other requests. The requester disputed the institution's capacity estimates and argued that exclusions and duplicates would significantly reduce the volume. The Commissioner found that the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that acting on the request would overburden its operations or hinder other requesters' rights, noting that the institution's ATIP processing capacity seemed understated and that no evidence of backlog was provided. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.

Quick view

Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 78

Nov 1, 20242024 OIC 78
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

A federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the request, for emails and chat messages from a specific office over a two-month period, was too broad and would result in over 75,800 pages, taking an estimated 12.6 years to process. It argued this would severely disrupt its operations, particularly a small office with limited resources, and hinder its ATIP office's ability to respond to other requests. The requester disputed the institution's capacity estimates and argued that exclusions and duplicates would significantly reduce the volume. The Commissioner found that the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that acting on the request would overburden its operations or hinder other requesters' rights, noting that the institution's ATIP processing capacity seemed understated and that no evidence of backlog was provided. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.

Key Issues
  • Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  • Whether the estimated volume of records would overburden the institution
  • Whether the institution's efforts to assist the requester were sufficient
  • Whether processing the request would severely impact the OPI's ability to advance its mandate
  • Whether processing the request would cause undue strain on the ATIP office and hinder other requesters' rights of access
  • Whether the institution's estimated processing capacity was accurate
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Jun 4, 20242023 OIC 48Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2023 OIC 48

A federal institution

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.

Quick view

Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2023 OIC 48

Jun 4, 20242023 OIC 48
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

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.

Key Issues
  • Whether the institution met its obligation to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA
  • Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
  • Whether the access request is vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Mar 1, 20242024 OIC 61Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 61

A federal institution

A federal 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 that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access. However, the Commissioner found that the institution's submissions and evidence were insufficient to demonstrate that the access request met the criteria for abuse of right. The Commissioner noted that the institution appeared to confuse the issue of whether records were under its control with the question of abuse of right, and also failed to demonstrate any attempt to assist the requester. Consequently, the Commissioner decided that the application did not merit further consideration and denied the institution's request.

Quick view

Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2024 OIC 61

Mar 1, 20242024 OIC 61
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

A federal 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 that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access. However, the Commissioner found that the institution's submissions and evidence were insufficient to demonstrate that the access request met the criteria for abuse of right. The Commissioner noted that the institution appeared to confuse the issue of whether records were under its control with the question of abuse of right, and also failed to demonstrate any attempt to assist the requester. Consequently, the Commissioner decided that the application did not merit further consideration and denied the institution's request.

Key Issues
  • Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
  • Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
  • Whether the institution attempted to assist the requester