Canadian privacy & access decisions

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