Canadian Privacy Decisions

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 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 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 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.