Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 67

Date of decision: September 25, 2026

Summary

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 685 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 to make a request.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did not establish that the access requests at issue are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is denied.

Application

Under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information 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 request at issue

On May 4, 2026, the institution sought the Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 685 access requests it had received between April 15, 2020, and April 10, 2026. The access requests are seeking a broad range of information on the military.

The institution claimed that the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request.

Are the access requests an abuse of the right to make a request?

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 at issue are an abuse of the right to make a request because they would overburden it and because their purpose is contrary to the Act.

Burden

The institution explained that the requester’s access requests accounted for more than 20% of all requests received for the past two fiscal years in a row. In fiscal year 2024-25, the requester submitted 476 requests (20% of overall requests), which then increased in fiscal year 2025-26 to 618 requests (21% of overall requests). This was also a significant increase from fiscal year 2023-24, in which the requester submitted 184 requests, or 8% of requests received. The institution explained that it currently has 684 active requests from the requester as of April 13, 2026.

The institution further explained that the focus of the requests has largely been on the military and that this has created a tremendous workload for the military offices of primary interest (OPIs) and has resulted in large backlogs, as they have been unable to keep up with the demand while also performing their mandated duties. The institution anticipates that, with the high volume of requests from this one requester continuing, the backlog will only accumulate further and cause delays in the requests of all requesters.

The institution mentioned that an agreement was made with the requester on May 6, 2025, to put 162 access requests on hold, namely all the requests that had yet to be tasked for retrieval. The institution claimed that, if it were to action these 162 requests, this would generate 867 tasking emails to OPIs, most OPIs being the military. This large number of taskings would have an impact on operational priorities and increase their backlogs further. The institution provided the following breakdown of taskings per OPI based on a preliminary assessment of the 162 requests on hold:

The institution claimed that the current backlogs in two specific OPIs, which have appeared over the last two years, are a direct result of the volume of requests from the requester. These OPIs have the two largest backlogs in the department, but prior to fiscal year 2024-25, they had no backlogs and acceptable on-time compliance rates. Their inability to meet the volume of requests from this requester has created large backlogs that they are now struggling to deal with. These backlogs not only affect the requests made by the requester, but are also affecting requests made by other individuals, resulting in delayed access and deemed refusals.

Finally, the institution explained that even though its access to information and privacy (ATIP) office has received additional funding and brought on an additional 25 full-time employees, the volume of requests generated by the requester is overburdening and monopolizing the ATIP office’s resources, unfairly detracting from the right of access of other requesters. The institution claimed that, by contributing to the institution’s backlog and overburdening both the ATIP office and OPIs, the volume of the requests is an abuse of the right of access.

Purpose

The institution also argued that the access requests at issue appear to be made to systematically confirm or refute speculative or conspiracy-based narratives. The institution argued that while the Act is intended to facilitate access to existing records in support of transparency and accountability, it is not intended to be used to systematically confirm or refute speculative or conspiracy-based narratives.

Discussion

Would the requests overburden the institution?

In 2020 OIC 17, the Commissioner held that the volume of access requests submitted does not alone substantiate a finding of abuse, but that a high volume, along with other factors, may support a finding of abuse of the right of access. The impact acting on access requests has on operations of an ATIP office or the relevant OPIs, combined with a high volume, may in some instances be sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of the right of access.

The institution’s submission rests primarily on the high volume of access requests the requester made, as well as on the volume of taskings they would generate. While the institution did provide some information about the impact these requests may have on the OPIs and ATIP office, this information is rather scant.

The institution claimed that the OPIs have a backlog of requests due to the requester and that the requests at issue constitute an unreasonable interference with operations. The institution, however, provided no representations regarding the OPIs’ capacity to address access requests nor the anticipated workload these requests represent for the OPIs, beyond the number of taskings. Unsupported assertions that acting on an access request will interfere with operations are insufficient for the Commissioner to conclude that a request constitutes an abuse of the right of access. While the evidence may demonstrate that the institution’s OPIs are experiencing a backlog, the institution’s evidence does not demonstrate the backlog is more likely caused by the requester than attributable to the OPIs’ shortcomings.

The Commissioner also notes that the institution requested her permission to decline to act on access requests that were made as far back as 2020, that is, six years ago. One of these older requests has generated fewer than 100 pages and most have generated fewer than 1,000 pages. The institution did not explain why these older requests remained outstanding 5-6 years later. In fact, it appears the institution is in a state of deemed refusal with respect to these requests and has provided no explanation in regard to its lack of responses. The Commissioner finds that the institution’s treatment of these older requests is unacceptable. While an institution may be able to justify its lack of response within the statutory timelines or lawfully extended time period when making an application pursuant to section 6.1, the institution has made no efforts to do so. In these circumstances, the institution cannot rely on its own malfeasance to contribute to the volume of work needed to be done to respond to this requester’s requests. The backlog that the institution is complaining about is, at least in part, the result of its own inaction and shortcomings.

The Commissioner concludes that the institution has not established that the access requests would overburden it or interfere with its operations.

Is the purpose of the access requests contrary to the Act?

The institution argued that the purpose of the access requests is to confirm or refute speculative or conspiracy-based narratives, and that this purpose is contrary to the Act.

The institution provided some evidence that the purpose of the requests is to “confirm or refute speculative or conspiracy-based narratives”, and the requester has not objected to this argument. The requester did explain, however, that this objective is only one of the seven objectives of their access requests.

Thus, the Commissioner accepts that one of the purposes behind the making of these requests is to seek information on “conspiracy theory topics”. That said, the institution did not convincingly explain how this purpose is contrary to the Act. The Commissioner sees no issue in making an access request that seeks information directly from the source on subject matters of interest to the requester. To the contrary, she frequently mentions that the Act is a key tool in countering misinformation and disinformation.

Moreover, upon review of the requester’s representations, the Commissioner is convinced that they have a genuine interest in the information they requested. The requester explained that they are a media requester, that all of their requests are in this capacity, and that they disseminate findings on public safety and military to the public.

Based on the above, the Commissioner concludes that the institution has not established that the purpose of the access requests is contrary to the Act, and thus that the access requests constitute an abuse of the right of access.

Decision

The institution has not established that the access requests met one or more of the requirements of subsection 6.1(1).

Therefore, the application is denied.