Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Finance Canada (Finance) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limits. The request, submitted on July 22, 2020, sought records related to a backgrounder on COVID-19 support for students. Although Finance sought clarifications, it did not claim an extension, and the due date was October 16, 2020. The investigation revealed that the delay was primarily due to Finance's internal Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch failing to provide records to the ATIP office in a timely manner. The Commissioner found that Finance was deemed to have refused access under subsection 10(3) of the Act due to the prolonged delay. The Commissioner ordered Finance to provide a final response forthwith, and Finance agreed to implement the order.

• Whether the Department of Finance Canada failed to respond to an access request within the time limits set out in the Access to Information Act
• Whether the institution was deemed to have refused access pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the Act

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to four access to information requests within the 30-day statutory time limit. The OIC investigation confirmed that the RCMP did not issue responses by the deadlines for any of the four requests, leading to a deemed refusal of access under subsection 10(3) of the Act. The RCMP attributed the delays to operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including difficulties in obtaining records from its Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) and the need for legal consultations regarding potential Cabinet confidences. However, the Information Commissioner found these explanations insufficient to justify the significant, prolonged delays, noting that the issues identified were not new and had been the subject of previous commitments. Consequently, the Commissioner found all four complaints to be well founded and ordered the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to provide final responses to each request forthwith. The RCMP subsequently informed the OIC that the complainant agreed to consolidate the requests, and a response would be provided by March 18, 2022.

• Whether the institution responded to the access requests within the 30-day time limit under s.7 ATIA
• Whether the institution's reasons for delay (COVID-19 operational challenges, OPI delays, potential Cabinet confidences) justified the failure to respond within the statutory timeframe

A federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access to information request, arguing it was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The request sought materials for a specific course offered during a particular period. The institution contended the request was repetitive, noting the requester had submitted over 900 requests, many of which were identical or substantially similar, and had already received the requested records and complained to the OIC regarding previous responses. The requester acknowledged some repetitiveness but denied any intent to be vexatious or abusive. The Commissioner found that while the volume of requests alone does not constitute abuse, the duplicative nature of the current request, which sought no new information and was entirely captured by previous requests, did. The Commissioner concluded that the repeated requests for substantively the same information, despite previous OIC investigations and available recourse to the Federal Court, constituted a misuse and abuse of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application.

• Whether the access request was vexatious 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 volume of requests alone substantiates a finding of abuse
• Whether the duplicative nature of the request, given previous requests, constitutes abuse

An unnamed federal institution sought the Information Commissioner's approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all internal correspondence of the institution over a seven-year period, which the institution believed constituted an abuse of the right of access. The institution demonstrated that it had made reasonable efforts to assist the requester in narrowing the scope, but the requester declined to engage. The Commissioner found that the request's extraordinarily broad scope, combined with the institution's small size and limited resources, would severely impede its ability to fulfill its mandate and respond to other access requests. Based on these factors, the Commissioner concluded that the request was indeed an abuse of the right of access. The application was granted, allowing the institution to decline to act on the request.

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

An unnamed federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, alleging it was vexatious and an abuse of the right of access. The institution stated the requester had submitted 893 requests over 17 years, many closely related, due to dissatisfaction with how the institution handled their affairs. The Commissioner considered the definition of "vexatious" and "abuse of right," drawing on jurisprudence from other Canadian jurisdictions. The Commissioner found 11 of the requester's prior requests were duplicative or substantially similar, rejecting the requester's arguments for their necessity. Ultimately, the Commissioner concluded that the request was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access, citing the large volume of requests, their repetitive nature, and recurring complaints to the OIC. The application was granted, allowing the institution to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is duplicative or substantially similar to previous requests
• Whether the volume of requests, combined with other factors, supports a finding of abuse of right

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, alleging the request was vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request, and in bad faith. The institution stated the requester was a former employee who had submitted over a dozen requests under the ATIA and Privacy Act within a year, following their dismissal. The Commissioner assessed the institution's claims regarding vagueness, repetitiveness, abusive language, and safety concerns, finding insufficient evidence to support the vexatious claim. The Commissioner also found no evidence that the request diminished the rights of other requesters or impacted the institution's other duties, thus rejecting the abuse of right claim. Finally, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to prove the request was made in bad faith, noting that pursuing legal rights does not equate to bad faith. The Commissioner also found the institution did not demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester. Consequently, the application was denied, and the institution was required to process the request.

• Whether the access request is vexatious under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is vague
• Whether the request is repetitive with previous requests
• Whether the requester used abusive language
• Whether there are concerns for the safety of employees related to the request
• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request diminishes the right of access of other requesters
• Whether the request affects the institution's ability to perform its other duties and responsibilities
• Whether the access request is made in bad faith under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA