Canadian 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 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