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 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 seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on two access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act (the Act). The institution argued that the access requests were made in bad faith and were an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further submitted that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester.

The Commissioner found that the institution did not show that it had fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act on the requests. As a result, it is not necessary to determine whether the access requests were made in bad faith or were an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is denied.

The complainant alleged that National Defence did not conduct reasonable searches in response to access requests under the Access to Information Act for records relating to certain contracts. The complaints fall within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The investigations determined that National Defence had not attempted to retrieve records in the possession of the third party that National Defence was entitled to obtain under the contract. As a result of the investigations, National Defence contacted the contractor to request copies of the records and retrieved the documents.

The Information Commissioner ordered that National Defence process any additional records located, provide new responses to the complainant that either give access to any additional records or identify why the additional records are not responsive to the request.

National Defence gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the orders.

The complaints are well founded.

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraphs 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and 21(1)(c) (positions or plans developed for negotiations), and section 23 (litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project and communications, including internal records relating to such communications, regarding Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, that were exchanged between the institution and the Alberta Energy Regulator. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the processing of their request, the complainant had expressly indicated that they were not interested in information not related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The Commissioner was satisfied that based on the particular facts of this case, Parks Canada was justified in not processing records, or portions thereof, which the complainant had agreed should not be considered part of the response to their request.

During the course of the investigation, Parks Canada disclosed a portion of the record initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a). The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the information that remained withheld under subsection 19(1), paragraph 21(1)(a) and section 23 met the criteria of the exemptions.

The complaint is well-founded.