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
Aug 1, 20212021 OIC 23Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2021 OIC 23

A federal institution

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.

Quick view

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

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2021 OIC 23

Aug 1, 20212021 OIC 23
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

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.

Key Issues
  • 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