Canadian Privacy Decisions

An institution applied for approval to decline processing an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access due to its excessive breadth and the burden it would place on the small organization. The requested records spanned multiple years and covered broad categories related to rare diseases and medication coverage. The Information Commissioner agreed that the request was overly broad and burdensome, constituting an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also found that the institution had met its duty to assist the requester.

• Is the access request an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA?
• Would responding to the request overburden the institution?
• Is the request overly broad?
• Did the institution meet its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1)?

An institution applied for approval to decline acting on a 42-page, 196-item access request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right of access. The institution had split the request into 196 separate requests without the requester's consent, leading the Commissioner to consider the application for the entire request. The Commissioner found that the breadth and complexity of the request placed an unreasonable burden on the institution, constituting an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also found the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was granted.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access
• Whether the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester
• Whether the modifications made by the requester after the application were timely
• Procedural fairness of the OIC's process

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued that the request was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner agreed that the request was an abuse of the right of access and granted the institution approval to decline to act on it.

• Whether the access request is vexatious
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access

An institution applied for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information. The request sought millions of pages of complex procurement records dating back to 2011. The Commissioner found the request was indeed an abuse of the right of access due to its excessive breadth and the significant burden it would place on the institution's resources, potentially hindering other requesters' access rights. The Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under section 6.1 of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution made reasonable efforts to assist the requester in clarifying or narrowing the request.
• Whether the estimated volume of records and complexity would overburden the institution's resources and impact other requesters' rights of access.
• The timeliness of the institution's application for approval to decline to act.

An institution applied for approval to decline acting on 597 access requests, arguing they were an abuse of the right to access information or vexatious. The Information Commissioner found that 550 requests met the criteria for abuse of process and granted approval for the institution to decline them. However, approval was denied for the remaining 47 requests, as the institution failed to demonstrate they were vexatious or an abuse of process.

• Abuse of the right of access
• Vexatious requests

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, an abuse of the right to request, and made in bad faith. The Commissioner agreed that the request was vexatious. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right to make a request
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline processing an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner agreed, finding that the institution had demonstrated the request was an abuse of access rights and that declining to act was warranted. Consequently, the application was granted.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access.

An institution applied for approval to decline to act on five access requests, arguing they were vexatious and an abuse of the right to access information. The Information Commissioner found that two of the requests (A-2023-00305 and A-2023-00314) were indeed an abuse of the right to access. Consequently, the Commissioner approved the institution's decision to decline to act on those two specific requests. However, the institution failed to prove that the remaining three requests (A-2023-00303, A-2023-00308 and A-2023-00310) were vexatious or an abuse of the right to access.

• Whether access requests are vexatious
• Whether access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request
• Application of section 6.1 of the Access to Information Act

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access request, arguing it was an abuse of the right to access information. The Commissioner agreed, finding the request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

An institution applied to decline an access request, arguing it was vexatious, made in bad faith, and an abuse of the right to access information. The institution claimed it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. The Information Commissioner found that the institution had indeed made reasonable efforts to assist the requester and that the request, due to its breadth and the estimated 700,000 pages it would generate, constituted an abuse of the right to access information as it would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations and hinder other requesters' access rights. The Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to applying to decline the request.
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access information.
• Whether the application to decline to act was submitted in a timely manner.
• The substantial volume of records and its impact on institutional operations and other requesters' access rights.

An institution applied for approval to decline to act on three access requests, arguing they were made in bad faith and constituted an abuse of the right to access information. The requests sought records containing a list of offensive words over a three-year period. The Commissioner found that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester and that the requests, due to their breadth, volume, and the specific keywords used, were indeed an abuse of the right of access, warranting approval to decline acting on them.

• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester.
• Whether the access requests constituted an abuse of the right to access information.
• The appropriateness of using vulgar and offensive keywords in access requests.
• The cumulative burden of multiple requests from the same requester.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access to information request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access records. The requester sought all emails, text messages, and computer files from three HR employees. The Commissioner found the request was overly broad, placed an undue burden on the institution, and impeded the rights of others, thus constituting an abuse of the right to access records. The Commissioner also found the institution had met its duty to assist the requester prior to making the application.

• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the request was vexatious.

The institution applied to the Information Commissioner to decline to act on an access request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access information. The requester had made multiple, repetitive requests for similar information, much of which had already been provided to them. The Commissioner found the request to be an abuse of the access right due to this pattern of behaviour and the fact that the requester was not seeking new information. The Commissioner also found that the institution had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right of access.
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist obligations.
• Whether the access request was vexatious.

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline an access to information request, arguing it was vexatious and an abuse of access rights. The Commissioner found the request was an abuse of access rights due to its duplicative nature and a pattern of repeated requests for the same information, despite prior access requests and complaints. The Commissioner approved the institution's application to decline acting on the request.

• Whether the access to information request was an abuse of the right of access.
• The repetitive and duplicative nature of the access request.
• Whether the institution established that the request met the criteria under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

The institution applied for approval to decline acting on an access request for all internal correspondence over seven years, arguing it was an abuse of the right of access. The requester did not make submissions. The Commissioner found the request, due to its overbroad scope in combination with the institution's small size and limited resources, constituted an abuse of the right of access, and granted the institution's application.

• Whether the request constitutes an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the ATIA.
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under subsection 4(2.1) of the ATIA.