Decisions

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request is vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request and made in bad faith.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request is vexatious. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access request.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on five access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the requests are vexatious and an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that two of the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request, namely, A-2023-00305 and A-2023-00314. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on these two access requests.

That said, the institution neither established that the remaining access requests (A-2023-00303, A-2023-00308 and A-2023-00310) are vexatious, nor that they are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is partially granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request was an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access request.

The application is granted.

An institution made an application 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 submitted that the request constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The Information Commissioner found that the institution established that the request is an abuse of the right of access. In addition, the Commissioner found that the circumstances warranted she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access request at issue.

The application is granted.

The Information Commissioner has reviewed the application from an institution for her approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act.

As indicated on the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) Website, institutions have one opportunity to explain why the Commissioner should grant their application. If the application merits consideration, the requester is invited to respond to the institution submissions. The Commissioner may also refuse an application that is incomplete or does not contain enough information for her to decide whether to grant it.

The institution’s submissions and scant evidence are far from sufficient to demonstrate that the access request meets the requirements to be an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records. The institution seems to confuse the question of whether the requested records are under its control with that of whether the access request constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner also noted that the institution did not even attempt to assist the requester.

The Commissioner has decided that the application does not merit further consideration. She gives notice to the institution and the requester that she will not consider the application. Consequently, there is no need to invite the requester to reply to the institution’s submissions.

The institution must, upon receiving this notice, notify the requester in writing of the date on which the running of the 30-day period to respond to the access request resumes, in accordance with subsections 6 (1.2) and (1.4).

Date of decision: January 2024

Summary

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, this request was vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further claimed that it had met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner found that the institution showed that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. The Commissioner also found that the institution established that the access request was an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on three access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, these requests are made in bad faith and are an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further claims that it met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did show that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. She also finds that the institution established that the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request is both an abuse of the right to make a request and vexatious. The institution further claims that it met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner finds that the institution showed that it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. The institution, however, did not establish that the access request is either an abuse of the right to make a request or vexatious.

The application is not granted.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request. The Commissioner also found that the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to further consider whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Information Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access.  In particular, the Commissioner found that the request is part of a pattern of behaviour involving the requester’s repeated requests for substantively the same information. The Commissioner also noted that most of the information being sought has either been provided by the requester to the institution, or has already been provided to the requester by the institution. The Commissioner also found that the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to further consider whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is granted.