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.

16 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Nov 1, 20192019 OIC 3Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 3

A federal institution

A federal 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. The institution argued that it had already disclosed some of the requested information to the same requester through an informal request, and processing the formal request would be duplicative. The institution sought to limit the scope of the formal request by excluding the time period covered by the informal release. However, the Commissioner found that the institution did not adequately explain how the records would be duplicates, noting that the subject matter and type of records appeared different. The Commissioner also considered that the formal request might be seeking a present-day review of redactions applied to previously released records. Crucially, the institution failed to specify which criteria under subsection 6.1(1) (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right) it was relying on, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of duplication meeting these criteria. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the application, requiring the institution to process the request.

Quick view

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

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 3

Date not listed2019 OIC 3
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

A federal 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. The institution argued that it had already disclosed some of the requested information to the same requester through an informal request, and processing the formal request would be duplicative. The institution sought to limit the scope of the formal request by excluding the time period covered by the informal release. However, the Commissioner found that the institution did not adequately explain how the records would be duplicates, noting that the subject matter and type of records appeared different. The Commissioner also considered that the formal request might be seeking a present-day review of redactions applied to previously released records. Crucially, the institution failed to specify which criteria under subsection 6.1(1) (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right) it was relying on, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of duplication meeting these criteria. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the application, requiring the institution to process the request.

Key Issues
  • 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 institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
  • Whether the institution's application was complete according to OIC guidance