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, 20232023 OIC 12Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2023 OIC 12

A federal institution

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two access to information requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the requester submitted a high volume of requests, refused to narrow their scope, and engaged in intimidating communications, thereby diverting public resources and harassing the department. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to fulfill its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, as its communication was solely aimed at reducing scope without offering other assistance. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution did not provide clear and compelling evidence to support its claims that the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right of access. 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, 2023 OIC 12

Aug 1, 20232023 OIC 12
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two access to information requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution claimed the requester submitted a high volume of requests, refused to narrow their scope, and engaged in intimidating communications, thereby diverting public resources and harassing the department. The Commissioner found that the institution failed to fulfill its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, as its communication was solely aimed at reducing scope without offering other assistance. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution did not provide clear and compelling evidence to support its claims that the requests were vexatious or an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner denied the institution's application, requiring it to process the access requests.

Key Issues
  • Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act
  • Whether the access requests were vexatious under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act
  • Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act