Canadian privacy & access decisions

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.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether the institution's estimate of responsive records was reliable
• Whether the institution's ATIP capacity limitations justify declining to act on the request

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 an access request. The institution argued the request was vexatious, made to seek retribution, bully, or circumvent an investigation, citing the requester's prior communications, refusal to narrow the request, and the timing and content of the request. The access request sought all emails, Teams messages, and iMessages from three ATIP office employees over a three-day period, regardless of subject matter. The Commissioner found that the institution did not establish that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner interpreted the requester's communications as indicating an intent to file an OIC complaint, not to bully or seek retribution, and found the refusal to narrow the scope plausible given the requester's stated interest in the ATIP office's deliberations. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the requester's email stating 'further action will be taken' indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the requester's refusal to narrow the scope of the request indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the requester's email stating intent to contact the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the content of the access request (seeking emails of ATIP employees) indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether the timing of the access request indicated a vexatious purpose
• Whether there was a conflict of interest in the institution's application

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.

• Whether the access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the requests would overburden the institution's operations
• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its estimated volume of records for the first access request (A-2024-00006)
• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its estimated volume of records for the second access request (A-2024-00068)
• Whether the institution sufficiently explained the impact of processing the requests on its offices of primary interest (OPIs) and ATIP office
• Whether the requests would hinder other requesters' right of access
• Whether the requests are repetitive
• Whether the items within the first access request are overlapping
• Whether records previously in the requester's possession (either provided to the institution or obtained through prior legal proceedings) makes the request repetitive
• Whether the availability of alternative means of accessing information (e.g., legal proceedings) makes the request repetitive
• Whether the requests are directed towards a purpose other than obtaining documents or information
• Whether the requests were intended to overwhelm the institution's resources or gain an advantage in legal proceedings

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.

• 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

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.

• 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

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.

• 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

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two access to information requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the requester submitted a high volume of requests, refused to narrow their scope, and engaged in intimidating communications, thereby diverting public resources and harassing the department. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to fulfill its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, as its communication was solely aimed at reducing scope without offering other assistance. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution did not provide clear and compelling evidence to support its claims that the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner denied the institution's application, requiring it to process the access requests.

• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act
• Whether the access requests were vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act

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, alleging the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request, and in bad faith. The institution stated the requester was a former employee who had submitted over a dozen requests under the ATIA and Privacy Act within a year, following their dismissal. The Commissioner assessed the institution's claims regarding vagueness, repetitiveness, abusive language, and safety concerns, finding insufficient evidence to support the vexatious claim. The Commissioner also found no evidence that the request diminished the rights of other requesters or impacted the institution's other duties, thus rejecting the abuse of right claim. Finally, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to prove the request was made in bad faith, noting that pursuing legal rights does not equate to bad faith. The Commissioner also found the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was denied, and the institution was required to process the request.

• Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is vague
• Whether the request is repetitive with previous requests
• Whether the requester used abusive language
• Whether there are concerns for the safety of employees related to the request
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request diminishes the right of access of other requesters
• Whether the request affects the institution's ability to perform its other duties and responsibilities
• Whether the access request is made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they were vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access. The institution also claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Commissioner found that the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the requests were vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access. Specifically, the Commissioner found no evidence of duplication, improper motive, or undue burden. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate it had met its duty to assist obligations before seeking approval to decline the requests. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the institution's application, requiring it to process the access requests.

• Whether the requests were vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the requests were made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the requests constituted an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under s.4(2.1) ATIA

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, alleging it was vexatious, an abuse of the right of access, and made in bad faith. The institution claimed the request was vague, repetitive, involved abusive language from the requester, and raised safety concerns. The Commissioner found the request sufficiently clear and noted no evidence of prior disclosure for repetitive claims. The Commissioner also determined that the provided examples did not establish abusive language or a link between safety concerns and the access request. Regarding abuse of right, the institution cited an increase in requests and processing time due to the requester, but failed to show how this diminished other requesters' rights or impacted its other duties. Finally, the Commissioner found no evidence of bad faith, stating that pursuing legal remedies, even for an alleged unjust dismissal, does not equate to bad faith in making an access request. The Commissioner also noted the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was denied, and the institution was ordered to process the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious due to vagueness
• Whether the access request was vexatious due to repetitiveness
• Whether the access request was vexatious due to abusive language from the requester
• Whether the access request was vexatious due to safety concerns
• Whether the access request amounted to an abuse of the right to make a request for records
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) ATIA

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.

• 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