Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 65

Date of decision: September 14, 2026

Summary

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

The Commissioner finds that the institution established that access requests A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0020, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023 are an abuse of the right of access. Moreover, the circumstances warrant that she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on these access requests.

That said, the institution did not establish that access request A-2025-0022 is an abuse of the right of access or vexatious.

The application is partially granted.

Application

Under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act, the head of a government institution may seek the Information Commissioner’s written approval to decline to act on an access request if, in the head of the institution’s opinion, the request is one or more of the following:

vexatious
made in bad faith
an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records.

Institutions may not decline to act on access requests for the sole reason that the requested information was already proactively published under Part 2 of the Act (subsection 6.1(1.1)).

The institution bears the burden of establishing that the access request meets one or more of the requirements under subsection 6.1(1).

If the institution establishes that one or more of the requirements of subsection 6.1(1) apply, the Commissioner must exercise her discretionary power to either grant or refuse the application.

In exercising her discretion, the Commissioner will consider all relevant factors and circumstances, including:

The quasi-constitutional nature of the right of access;
The public interest in the records sought;
Whether the institution met its obligations under subsection 4(2.1) to make every reasonable effort to assist a requester in connection with their request.

Access requests at issue

On February 19, 2026, the institution sought the Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on six access requests it had received between January 22 and February 13, 2026. The access requests are the following:

A-2025-0016:

Item 1 all records provided by [the requester] relating to [their] PSDPA [Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act] submission against [another institution]
Item 2 all records provided by [the requester’s] Lawyer regarding [their] PSDPA submission against [another institution]
Item 3 all records created and provided to [the requester] by the [institution]

A-2025-0019:

Item 1 all records provided to the [institution] pertaining to [the requester’s] PSDPA submission against [another institution]
Item 2 all records created by the [the institution] in processing [the requester’s complaint] relating to [their] PSDPA submission against [another institution]

A-2025-0020:

Item 1 all records provided by [the requester] relating to [their] PSDPA submission against [another institution]
Item 2 all of [the requester]’s personal information at the [institution]

A-2025-0021:

Item 1 all records provided by [the requester] relating to [their] PSDPA submission against [another institution]
Item 2 all administrative operational records created by the [institution] in relation to [the requester]’s PSDPA submission

A-2025-0022:

Item 1 pertains to [the requester]’s frequent demand that the [institution] conduct a performance audit regarding personal grievances […]
Item 2 all administrative records pertaining to [the requester]’s request to conduct a performance audit
Item 3 all performance audit requests submitted to the [institution] […]

A-2025-0023:

Item 1 all records provided by [the requester] relating to [their] PSDPA submission against [another institution]
Item 2 all records created by legal counsel relating to [the requester]’s PSDPA submission against [another institution]

The institution claimed that the access requests are an abuse of the right of access and vexatious.

Are the access requests an abuse of the right of access?

The Act provides requesters with a right to access information under a government institution’s control—a right that should not be abused.

The Commissioner considers an abuse to have occurred when an access request exceeds the limits of the legitimate exercise of that right. When determining whether a request is abusive, the Commissioner focuses on the scope, nature and cumulative effect of the request, including the following:

whether the request is repetitive or overly broad
whether the request was made with a purpose other than obtaining documents or information
whether acting on the request would overburden the institution and/or obstruct the institution’s ability to respond to other access requests (and, therefore, affect other requesters’ right of access) or both.

The Commissioner may also consider the institution’s efforts, if any, to help the requester determine what information they want and/or narrow the scope of their request. She may also consider the requester’s responses to such efforts, including the extent to which they have demonstrated a willingness to work with the institution.

The institution argued that the access requests are an abuse of the right of access because they are repetitive and their purpose is not to seek information. The institution also pointed out that, in the decision 2022 OIC 35, the Commissioner granted her authorization to the institution to decline to act on a similar request made by the same requester.

Repetition

The institution explained that, between July 2015 and February 13, 2026, the requester submitted fourteen access requests. All of these requests were primarily related to several disclosures of alleged wrongdoing by another institution. The institution explained that the most recent requests (A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0020, A-2025-0021, A-2025-0022 and A-2025-0023), which are the subject of this application, relate to the same subject matter as their earlier requests.

The institution argued that, as in 2021 OIC 30, the issue is not necessarily the volume of requests submitted by the requester but rather their duplicative nature. The institution claimed that the requester persists in requesting the same records, despite having already received the information to which they are entitled. In addition, the institution has explained to the requester that much of what they are requesting cannot be provided pursuant to section 16.5 of the Access to Information Act.

The institution explained that the requester has unsuccessfully challenged its application of section 16.5 of the Access to Information Act to withhold information. Section 16.5 requires institutions to refuse to disclose information created for the purpose of making a disclosure under the PSDPA or during an investigation under that Act. The requester has availed themselves of the recourse provided in the Access to Information Act by making a number of complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner. According to the institution, given this pattern, there is no reason to expect that the requester will stop making access requests, and no prospect that their requests will facilitate access to new records that they are entitled to receive, or that they do not already have.

Purpose

The institution also claimed that, in the past, the requester has refused to reduce the timeframe of the newest requests to cover only the time period between their last request and the most recent one. According to the institution, the requester’s refusal to adjust the scope of their requests tends to suggest that they are less interested in making a productive and good faith request than in asserting their right of access.

Additionally, the institution explained that the requester advised the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Coordinator that the purpose of their first request (A-2015-013) was to ascertain whether or not the institution had retained the information they had submitted previously in support of their claims and allegations of wrongdoing under the PSDPA. The requester further indicated during their telephone conversation with the ATIP Coordinator that they wanted to put their request on hold, as they had more information to submit. According to the institution, the pattern of the requester’s most recent requests has been similar to the pattern of their earlier requests.

According to the institution, the purpose of the original request A-2015-013, as articulated by the requester, does not seem to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the Act. For this and subsequent requests, the requester already has much of the information they are requesting because they are the source of the information. The requester’s disclosures under the PSDPA have been addressed and their requests for a performance audit have been answered. Where the institution has withheld records, it has done so with express statutory authority.

Further, the institution noted that the OIC previously determined that the requester’s complaints about the institution’s application of exemptions were not well founded. It is therefore not clear why the requester wishes to know whether the institution has retained the documents that they submitted, or why they have submitted documents to the institution only to then request access to them. Finally, according to the institution, it is equally unclear how the requests advance the principles and objectives of the Act.

Discussion

In 2022 OIC 35, the Commissioner concluded that the access request at issue constituted an abuse of the right of access because it was repetitive and its purpose was not to seek information. The same issues arise in the present application.

Are the access requests repetitive?

The Commissioner considers that an access request is repetitive when no new records are being sought. In 2022 OIC 35, the Commissioner noted that even though the timeframe covered by the access request at issue was broader, it was unlikely that the access request would generate new records.

The Commissioner finds that the same argument applies to four of the six access requests at issue, namely, A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0021, A-2025-0023. These four requests are seeking yet again the records provided by the requester to support their PSDPA disclosure, as well as all the records created by the institution in response to the requester’s disclosure. These records have already been requested in eight previous access requests. For example, the requester has made the following access requests:

A-2015-013:

All records provided by [the requester] to [an employee] of the [institution] pertaining to alleged wrongdoing committed by[another institution].

All records created by the [institution] pertaining to [the requester] in relation to records provided to the [institution] above.

All records sent or created and/or received between [two institutions].

Time period: September 1, 2014 to present.

A-2017-006:

Under the Access to Information Act I request the following records:

All records under the control of the [institution] provided by [the requester] with the assistance of lawyer […] as part of […] $3.000.00 PSDPA funded complaint against [another institution].
All records provided to [the institution’s] Communication email address by [the requester] pertaining to numerous requests for a fulsome performance audit on the reprisals suffered by Canadians and Public servants by the illegal unethical actions/inactions undertaken by [another institution’s] senior officials on positions of authority. Time period Jan 1, 2016 to present.

A-2021-003:

Pursuant to ATIA, I request the following administrative operational records provided to the [institution] for administrative decisions, the record requested under the control of the [institution] are the following:

All records provided by [the requester] to [a specific email address]
All records provided by [the requester] to [another] email address : […]
All records provided by [the requester] to [an employee of the institution].
All Privacy Act record corrections initiated at [the institution] for the purpose of amending [the institution’s] operational administrative records utilized for [...] administrative decisions.
The complete release package for […] ATIA and PA requests numbers P-2016-00002, PI-2017-00002, A-2017-00004, A-2017-00006, and A-2017-00007.
A copy of all Epost correspondence provided by the [institution] to [the requester] via email at […]

The only difference between the four access requests in question, and the previous access requests, is the timeframe covered by the four requests, which is broader given that the requests were submitted more recently. Thus, they would cover an additional time period of about four years.

That said, the Commissioner finds that it is unlikely that these four requests would generate new records. The institution indicated in their representations that the requester made their disclosures under the PSDPA in 2015, 2016, and 2020, and that no significant event has taken place since. It is unlikely that new records were created in the additional time period covered by the four access requests in question. Thus, the Commissioner concludes that A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023 are repetitive in nature.

A repetitive access request may constitute an abuse of the right of access where there is no legitimate justification for the repetition. In this case, the requester did not explain their need for the repetitive requests. Consequently, the Commissioner finds that the requester was not justified in the circumstances to make repetitive requests, and that A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023 constitute an abuse of the right of access.

As for A-2025-0020, while item 2 of A-2025-0020 may seek information that is not entirely repetitive of the requester’s previous requests, the Commissioner finds that given the repetitive nature of item 1, A-2025-0020 nonetheless qualifies as abusive when examined in the context of the request as a whole.

Item 1 seeks no new records and is clearly repetitive of the requester’s earlier requests in the same ways that A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023 are repetitive. Item 2 requests all the personal information of the requester held by the institution – which would likely consist of both information provided in the context of the requester’s PSDPA complaints and outside that context. While it is possible there would be records responsive to item 2 that the requester has not previously received, this does not negate the abusive nature of the request, overall. If one aspect of a request constitutes an abuse, then, subject to extenuating circumstances, the request, in its entirety, constitutes an abuse. Thus, given the obvious repetitive nature of item 1 and the possibility of further repetition in item 2, and absent an explanation from the requester justifying the need for repetitive requests, the Commissioner finds that A-2025-0020 constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

As for A-2025-0022, the Commissioner finds that the institution failed to demonstrate that this request was duplicative and unlikely to generate new records. Whereas the institution provided a detailed chronology supporting the likelihood that no new records would be provided in response to A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0020, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023, where the primary target of the request is records provided or created in response to the requester’s PSDPA complaints, the institution gave no indication of the timing of the requester’s demands for performance audits, beyond labelling them as frequent. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Commissioner cannot find that A-2025-0022 is likely to generate substantially similar, let alone no new information than that previously received by the requester. As such, there is insufficient evidence on which to label this request as repetitive.

Given that the Commissioner found that A-2025-0022 is not repetitive, she then examines whether the purpose of this request indicates that it constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

Is the purpose of A-2025-0022 contrary to the Act?

The institution argued that, in the past, the requester refused to adjust the scope of their most recent requests to capture solely the time period between their last request and the most recent one. According to the institution, the requester’s refusal to adjust the scope of their requests tends to suggest that they are less interested in making a productive and good faith request than in asserting their right of access.

It is unclear to the Commissioner how the circumstances described by the institution apply to the second and third items of A-2025-0022. As mentioned above, the requester has never requested this information before. Thus, it is unclear why the institution is expecting the requester to adjust the timeframe of these items. As for the first item, the Commissioner sees why the institution may expect the requester to adjust the timeframe to capture the last years, but in the present case, the institution has not offered this option to the requester.

The institution also argued that the purpose of the original request was to determine whether it had retained the information the requester sent. The institution added that the pattern of the requester’s most recent requests is similar to their earlier requests.

The Commissioner accepts that one purpose of the first item is likely to determine whether the institution retained the information the requester provided, given that the first item is seeking the records that the requester provided. That said, it is unclear that this purpose is contrary to the Act. As for the second and third items, the Commissioner does not see why their purpose would be to determine whether the institution retained the information the requester provided.

Given the above, the Commissioner concludes that the institution has not demonstrated that the purpose of A-2025-0022 is contrary to the Act, and thus that the request constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The Commissioner then examines whether A-2025-0022 is vexatious.

Is the access request vexatious?

The term “vexatious” carries the same meaning as it does in everyday usage. In the context of access to information law, vexatious access requests are generally those made primarily to embarrass, harass or cause annoyance or trouble. Such requests must be more than merely an inconvenience to the institution.

Even seemingly legitimate access requests can be vexatious if they are made for improper purposes, such as inflicting damage or seeking retribution.

To determine if a request is vexatious or not, the Commissioner can also consider, among other things, the history of the request—in terms of the dealings between the requester and the institution—and the number, scope and pattern of previous requests.

The institution argued that the vexatiousness of the access requests is demonstrated by two elements:

the history of very similar access requests made since 2015, and
some of the inflammatory language used by the requester in this and earlier access requests.

The institution further explained that the language of the requests over the last ten years has become increasingly accusatory in nature. For example, the requester has repeatedly referred to senior government officials as having been involved in illegal activities. The requester has also accused officials of wrongfully destroying records. In the institution’s view, the requester’s use of such language tends to suggest that personal grievances are motivating them.

In addition, the institution also mentioned that the requester has copied a number of third parties, including parliamentarians and other government officials, on their most recent request and on previous ones. The institution believes that the requester’s use of unsubstantiated accusatory language directed at the institution, while drawing their request to the attention of third parties, amounts to a vexatious attempt to intimidate and harass the institution, which rises above the level of mere embarrassment or discomfort.

Discussion

As mentioned above, the Commissioner only evaluates whether the remaining access request, A-2025-0022, is vexatious.

The original wording of this request is the following:

A-2025-0022: “Pursuant to ATIA, I request all administrative operational records provided to the [instutition] by [the requester] for an […] administrative decision of a performance audit request to end EMPLOYER PSDPA financial and psychological harm - […] Lawyer funded - PSPDA reprisals complaints ( 2 X )

secondly. I request all […] operational records created by [the instution’a] officials in response to [the requester]'s official […] to CONDUCT A PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTATION (FAA) BREACH OF CONTRACT BY SENIOR gOc OFFICIALS.

Lastly, I request a copy of all performance audit request)s) submitted to the [institution] against the Public service of Canada and/or Political interference to conceal wrongdoing as defined by the laws and charters of Canada.”

The Commissioner recognizes that this request contains serious accusations, which the requester has explicitly drawn to the attention of third parties, like government officials. The requester appears to be acting in furtherance of certain personal grievances.

That being said, a request is not vexatious simply because it contains accusations. If it was shown that the primary purpose of the request was to bring forward these accusations, that might be sufficient to demonstrate vexatiousness. Regarding the motivations of a requester, requesters are often motivated by personal interests, and that alone does not establish a request is vexatious.

In the present case, the Commissioner is not convinced that making accusations is more than an incidental purpose, as each item of the request seeks information that the requester has not yet requested. The requester appears to have a genuine interest in obtaining information, even if motivated by personal interest.

Moreover, the Commissioner is not convinced that the requester has any intent to intimidate or harass the institution, nor that their behaviour amounts to an unintentional form of intimidation or harassment. The institution has not provided enough information about the effect of the requester’s access requests on its staff to support the latter position.

Given the above, the Commissioner concludes that the institution has not demonstrated that access request A-2025-0022 is vexatious.

Do the circumstances warrant that the Commissioner provides her approval to decline to act on the access requests?

Given that the instutition established that one of the requirements of subsection 6.1(1) applies to five access requests, the Commissioner must exercise her discretionary power to either grant or refuse the application.

In exercising her discretion, she considered all relevant factors and circumstances, including the following.

Obligation to assist the requester

Subsection 4(2.1) sets out a general duty for institutions to assist requesters. The scope of this duty is broad—requiring institutions to make “every reasonable effort” to assist requesters with their access requests—and extends as far as it would be reasonable for institutions to provide assistance.

The duty to assist does not require institutions to take particular steps in all cases, but carrying out this obligation may include actions such as helping a requester clarify their access request to make it possible for the institution to identify responsive records and/or helping a requester narrow the scope of a request to facilitate a more timely response. What will constitute “every reasonable effort” to assist the requester with their request in any given situation will depend on the facts and circumstances, and must be assessed case by case.

The institution reached out to the requester on January 26, 2026, to confirm receipt of the first three access requests (A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0020) and, given their similarity, to ask whether the requester intended to submit three requests or one request three times. The institution also informed the requester that the subject matter of these requests was identical to the subject matter of the request the Commissioner authorized the institution to disregard in the past. Additionally, the institution provided an opportunity to the requester to explain how these requests were different, but the requester did not respond.

Given the circumstances, the Commissioner finds that the institution has made every reasonable effort to assist the requester with their access requests. Consequently, she concludes that the institution established that it had met its duty to assist the requester.

Decision

The institution has established that five access requests, namely A-2025-0016, A-2025-0019, A-2025-0020, A-2025-0021 and A-2025-0023, meet the requirements of subsection 6.1(1) as they are an abuse of the right of access.

The circumstances warrant an exercise of the Commissioner’s discretionary power to authorize the institution to decline to act on these access requests.

That said, the institution has not established that A-2025-0022 meets one or more of the requirements of subsection 6.1(1).

Therefore, the application is partially granted.