The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

1 decision matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Mar 10, 20222019 OIC 2Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 2

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, 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.

Quick view

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

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2019 OIC 2

Mar 10, 20222019 OIC 2
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, 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.

Key Issues
  • 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