Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant submitted an access to information request to a federal institution and received a response in October 2021. The institution's response included a notice informing the complainant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner within sixty days. The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) in January 2022, which was more than sixty days after receiving the institution's response. The OIC determined that the complaint was submitted outside the mandatory 60-day timeframe specified in section 31 of the Access to Information Act. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner concluded that the OIC does not have the authority to extend statutory timeframes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

• Whether the complaint was filed within the 60-day statutory timeframe as per s.31 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether the Information Commissioner has the authority to extend the statutory timeframe for filing a complaint

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution argued that it had already disclosed some of the requested information to the same requester through an informal request, and processing the formal request would be duplicative. The institution sought to limit the scope of the formal request by excluding the time period covered by the informal release. However, the Commissioner found that the institution did not adequately explain how the records would be duplicates, noting that the subject matter and type of records appeared different. The Commissioner also considered that the formal request might be seeking a present-day review of redactions applied to previously released records. Crucially, the institution failed to specify which criteria under subsection 6.1(1) (vexatious, bad faith, or abuse of right) it was relying on, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of duplication meeting these criteria. Consequently, the Commissioner denied the application, requiring the institution to process the request.

• Whether the access request was vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request was an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution provided sufficient evidence to support its s.6.1 application
• Whether the institution's application was complete according to OIC guidance