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 that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access, citing two main reasons: the request's alleged purpose to obtain information not under the institution's control or another individual's personal information, and the significant burden processing the request would place on the institution. The Commissioner examined whether the request's purpose was illegitimate and whether the institution's burden assessment was adequately justified. The Commissioner found that seeking information potentially not under control or personal information does not inherently constitute an abuse of the right of access. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution's estimates for record volume and processing time were not sufficiently substantiated. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access, and the application was denied.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request's purpose to obtain information not under the institution's control makes it an abuse of right
• Whether the request's purpose to obtain another individual's personal information makes it an abuse of right
• Whether processing the request would overburden the institution
• Whether the institution's estimate of record volume was sufficiently justified
• Whether the institution's assessment of the impact on the OPI and ATIP office was sufficiently justified

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