Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

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 72 access requests. The institution argued that these requests constituted an abuse of the right of access and were vexatious, citing their high volume, repetitive nature, and the burden they placed on resources. The Commissioner found that 71 of the 72 requests were an abuse of the right of access, concluding that those in Annex A were repetitive and those in Annex B were unduly systematic. While the institution did not prove the requests had a purpose other than obtaining information, the Commissioner noted the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist. Considering the minimal public interest in further disclosure given thousands of pages already released, and the disproportionate effort required, the Commissioner partially granted the application. The institution was approved to decline to act on 71 requests, but not one request related to ATIP training. The Commissioner also declined to impose limits on future requests.

• Whether the institution's application to decline to act on 72 access requests under s.6.1(1) ATIA should be granted
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access requests were vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access requests were repetitive
• Whether the access requests were made with a purpose other than obtaining records or information
• Whether the access requests were unduly systematic
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the public interest in the records sought warranted granting or denying the application
• Whether the Commissioner should exercise discretion to grant the application
• Whether limits should be placed on future access requests from the requester

An unnamed federal 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 extensive records related to rare diseases and medications, spanning from the earliest records to the present, across multiple departments and communication types. The institution contended the request was overly broad, would overburden its small staff, and required manual review of an unmanageable volume of records. The Commissioner found that the request, particularly its fifth part, was indeed overly broad and that responding to it would overburden the institution, which has only 15 employees and processes a modest number of pages annually. Despite the requester's offer to provide a more specific list of diseases, the Commissioner concluded that the institution had made reasonable efforts to assist and that the request would still be unduly burdensome. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is overly broad
• Whether acting on the request would overburden the institution
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances warrant granting approval to decline to act on the request

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on a 42-page access request containing 196 items, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access. The requester objected to the institution unilaterally splitting the request into 196 separate files and argued that the Commissioner could not be impartial due to OIC employees visiting their company website. The Commissioner found that the institution had established that the request was an abuse of the right of access due to its excessive breadth and the burden it placed on the institution, despite the requester's modifications to the request being deemed untimely. The Commissioner also found that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the Commissioner had a conflict of interest
• Whether OIC employees visiting the requester's website constituted a breach of procedural fairness
• Whether the institution's employees had a conflict of interest
• Whether the requester's modifications to the request rendered the application moot
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA