Canadian Privacy Decisions

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner seeking approval to decline an access request, claiming it was vexatious. The institution argued the request was made in retaliation for how a previous request was handled, citing the requester's deadline threat, refusal to narrow the scope, and threats to complain to other commissioners. The Commissioner found the institution did not prove the request was vexatious, noting the requester's explanations for their actions were more plausible. Therefore, the application to decline the request was denied.

• Whether the access request was vexatious, made in bad faith, or an abuse of the right of access.
• Interpretation of the phrase 'further action will be taken' in the context of an access request.
• Whether a requester's refusal to narrow the scope of a request indicates a vexatious purpose.
• Whether the timing and content of the request indicated vexatious intent.

An institution applied under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act for approval to decline to act on two access requests, arguing they constituted an abuse of the right to request information. The institution claimed the requests would overburden its operations, were repetitive, and intended to gain an advantage in legal proceedings. The Information Commissioner denied the application, finding the institution did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. The Commissioner noted the broad scope of the requests but concluded the institution failed to demonstrate they were an abuse of the Act.

• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access by overburdening the institution.
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right of access due to their repetitive nature.
• Whether the purpose of the access requests was other than obtaining documents or information.
• Sufficiency of evidence provided by the institution regarding the estimated volume of records and operational impact.