Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 08

Date of decision: January 19, 2026

Summary

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on a 42-page access request, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the access request is vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of the right of access.

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

The application is 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 request at issue

An institution received a 42-page access request listing 196 items. The institution proceeded to split this request into 196 individual requests in its access to information and privacy (ATIP) request processing software. Based on the evidence before the Commissioner, the institution did this without the consent of the requester, who also objected to it. In their representations, the requester stated that they “submitted a single, context-rich master request composed of numbered sub-requests” and that the institution “chose to artificially parse this unified request into over 190 separate files”. That said, the requester wasn’t required to pay an additional fee for each request.

The access request comprising 196 items seeks an extensive range of records, including correspondence with various federal agencies and records referencing multiple individuals and entities (the requester and their companies among others).

One month later, the institution submitted its application under subsection 6.1(1). That application was framed as an application for the Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 126 of the 196 items set out in the 42-page access request. However, as pointed out by the requester, the institution did not have the authority to unilaterally treat the items listed as separate requests. The Commissioner has therefore considered the institution’s application for approval to decline to act on the totality of the 42-page request as a single request.

In light of the above, the Commissioner finds that it is more appropriate to consider that there is only one access request at issue, which comprises 196 items.

According to the institution, the access request is vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of the right of access.

Preliminary matters

Procedural fairness and the Commissioner’s alleged conflict of interest

The requester alleged that following the Office of the Information Commissioner’s receipt of this application, two OIC employees visited the requester’s company website. According to the requester, this constitutes a breach of procedural fairness, which led to them filing a complaint with another regulatory body.

In turn, the requester alleged that the Commissioner cannot serve as an impartial decision maker or fairly adjudicate this application.

With all due respect, the Commissioner does not agree. Having considered the matter, in her view, there is no basis upon which any informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude that she would not decide the application fairly. Any complaints to other regulatory or review bodies will proceed according to the processes of those bodies and have no effect on this application.

Turning to the alleged breach of procedural fairness, in her view, OIC employees visiting the requester’s company website does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness under the circumstances. Pursuant to section 34 of the Act, the Commissioner may determine the procedure to be followed when deciding whether to give approval to an institution to decline to act on a request. She has adopted a process to be applied in the majority of cases, which can be found here: Process: seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request. Note that, as indicated in the process document, she may depart from these instructions and timelines when warranted.

While two OIC employees visited the requester’s company website after the filing of the institution’s application, these actions have had no bearing on her determination of this application. No information was gathered from that website and/or communicated to her to inform her decision. If it had been the case, the parties to this application would have been made aware and provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond. Instead, the only materials considered by the Commissioner in this application were those submitted by the institution in its application and the requester’s submissions in response, excluding those explicitly withdrawn by the requester.

Turning to the issue of submissions by the parties, the requester objected to sharing certain submissions with the institution and therefore withdrew reliance on certain arguments. The requester asked for clarification on the Commissioner’s process of requiring parties to share their submissions. Again, per section 34 of the Act, the Commissioner is authorized to determine the procedure to be followed in deciding section 6.1 applications. From the outset, both parties were aware of the requirement to share with each other their submissions, absent extenuating circumstances. In this instance, no compelling reasons were provided as to why she should deviate from her normal procedures.

Institution employees’ alleged conflict of interest

The requester also alleged that two employees of the institution who were involved in this 6.1 application are in a conflict of interest, given that they failed to provide accommodation and are the subject of a formal complaint submitted by the requester against them.

A conflict of interest is generally understood as a situation, whether real, apparent or potential, in which an employee has private interests and/or outside activities that could improperly influence the performance of the employee’s official duties and responsibilities or in which the employee uses their employment for personal gain. In this instance, the Commissioner has seen no evidence that the individuals involved in the application were acting in a manner contrary to their official employment duties.

In general, the employees working within the ATIP unit of an institution will have a professional interest in the processing of an access request. The mere fact that an institution makes use of this application process and that the application is signed or presented by an employee within the ATIP unit does not, in isolation, evidence a conflict of interest.

The 6.1 application process is available to institutions under prescribed circumstances. Of importance, an institution must request the Commissioner’s permission to decline to act on an access request. This serves as a safeguard against employees of an institution acting in a manner that furthers their personal interests over their professional duties.

Effect of withdrawal of items from the request

Just after the institution submitted the present application, the requester made a series of modifications to the access request. In particular, the requester withdrew 67 items, conditionally withdrew 7 items, and revised 20 items. Given the modifications they made, the requester argued that the application was factually obsolete, because the volume, scope, and burden described by the institution no longer correspond to the actual state of the file. The requester demanded that the institution amend or refile its application to reflect these changes.

The Commissioner finds that these modifications are untimely. The requester should have made these changes during their exchanges with the institution and prior to the institution’s 6.1 application. For the access to information system to function properly, there must be some degree of finality in relation to an institution’s obligations to respond to a request. To reject a section 6.1 application on the basis that the requester has revised their request following the institution’s submission of the application introduces too much continued uncertainty. This is illustrated, in the present instance, by the fact that the requester, while claiming on the one hand to have withdrawn parts of their request, also mentioned they “reserve the right to reintroduce any of these requests”.

Moreover, throughout her review process of the 6.1 application, the Commissioner notes that the requester has changed their mind on many different issues, including on the issue of the withdrawn items. A few days after withdrawing the 67 items, the requester reinstated 4 of them. The Commissioner finds that it would be unreasonable to expect the institution to resubmit an application under subsection 6.1(1), given the requester’s change of mind and the very real possibility that they modify yet again their request after receiving the institution’s new application.

The requester asserts that the present application is moot by virtue of having modified the request after the institution’s filing of this application. In light of her decision that the modifications are untimely, the Commissioner disagrees with the requester that the matter underlying the 6.1 application has been resolved.

Is the access request 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, she 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.

She 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 request at issue is an abuse of the right of access because it constitutes an unreasonable burden, contains items that are repetitive, and was made with a purpose that is misaligned with legislative intent.

Burden on the institution

The institution explained that the requester previously submitted a request under the Privacy Act seeking all information pertaining to themself or their companies, and that only two responsive records were identified. The requester subsequently submitted five additional requests under the Privacy Act for the administrative files related to their original request.

The institution further explained that the requester then submitted their first access request, the one at issue in this application, which consisted of a single 42-page request containing 196 individual items. This access request seeks all information that stemmed from the initial and follow-up privacy requests, and much more.

The institution also explained that, upon initial review, it was determined that many of the items were overly broad, vague, duplicative, or lacked sufficient specificity to allow for reasonable identification of the records sought, and that the institution undertook multiple efforts to assist the requester and to clarify the ambiguous elements of the request. Specifically:

• The institution informed the requester that their submission would need to be segmented for processing purposes. The institution proceeded to attribute each of the 196 items a number from their ATIP request processing software.
• The institution developed and shared with the requester an Excel worksheet that consolidated all requests, including all relevant information and clarifications, its preliminary assessment of potential record holders, specific clarification questions, and fields with questions for the requester to provide answers to.
• The institution engaged with the requester by email on multiple occasions with, which the institution qualified as “tailored, good-faith attempts aimed at clarifying the requests.”

The institution explained that it received 20 emails in response to its first clarification request, and 126 emails in response to its second clarification attempt. The institution claimed that the requester’s responses were verbose, disjointed, and introduced new ambiguities, ultimately creating more confusion than clarity.

The institution argued that the submission of 196 items, many overlapping or lacking in clarity, combined with repeated and unhelpful clarification responses, constitutes a cumulative burden that is unreasonable.

The institution further claimed that the requested items collectively encompass an exceptionally broad range of records, formats, and metadata requirements. They “span numerous government entities, timeframes, individuals, and subject matters”. The breadth, depth, sheer volume and granularity of the requested items impose an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on departmental resources.

Additionally, the institution claimed that because several of the requested items are drafted in vague and ambiguous language, it is effectively impossible to ascertain which specific departmental units or custodians are most likely to hold the requested information. This lack of clarity significantly increases the administrative burden, as significant time and resources must be spent attempting to interpret the scope and correctly identify relevant records custodians.

The institution further explained that the requester’s clarification responses have not provided information that facilitates processing. Each series of clarification has added additional information without substantially clarifying, streamlining or reducing the request. In fact, the clarification only added additional information increasing the search parameters rather than reducing them. It did not provide a more condensed overarching search criterion.

Furthermore, the institution explained that the requester insisted on receiving records in their original machine-readable formats with intact metadata. According to the institution, this demand significantly exceeds standard processing practices and introduces complexity and workload. The institution receives records from a variety of internal sources and in multiple formats, including Word documents, PDFs, Excel files, emails, screenshots, and scanned images. These are consolidated and processed through its ATIP review tools to ensure accurate redactions and consistency in application of exemptions. Releasing records in their original format would, according to the institution, require bypassing these tools, which are critical to ensuring the integrity and security of the redactions applied. Conducting manual redactions outside this secure environment increases the risk of error and may compromise the protection of sensitive information. In addition, managing and disclosing multiple original-format files, particularly in high-volume requests, introduces practical risks. Emailing numerous separate attachments raises issues related to file size limitations, potential omissions, and the difficulty of cross-referencing and verifying completeness. Identifying and correcting these issues is resource-intensive and detracts from the institution’s ability to process other requests in a timely manner.

Repetition

The institution also argued that many items contained in the request overlap or reiterate demands for the same or closely related categories of records, indicating an intent to inundate the department with repetitive queries.

Purposes of the request

According to the institution, the primary purposes of the request are the following:

• To unduly burden or inundate the institution, cause institutional strain and havoc.
• To audit government procedures, and challenge and scrutinize the administrative functioning of the ATIP office.

As for the first purpose, the institution argues that the timing, volume, and content of the items strongly suggest a coordinated effort to inundate the department. Additionally, the institution claimed that this purpose is evidenced by queries targeting tracking of applicants, as well as by the fact that one item is about whether any employees have expressed distress regarding their requests.

As for the second purpose, the institution pointed out that the requester identified their company as an entity concerned with public transparency. They indicated that over 120 privacy requests had been filed as part of a national access audit. The institution claimed that the nature, frequency and scope of this requester’s requests strongly suggest an attempt to conduct a comprehensive audit or mapping of its Access to Information (ATI) services and internal processes rather than to obtain specific records for transparency or accountability purposes.

The institution contends that the Act is intended to provide individuals with a right of access to government-held information for purposes of transparency and accountability. However, according to the institution, it is not designed to serve as a mechanism for auditing government procedures, workflows, or the operational architecture of ATI services themselves. Instead, established oversight and audit mechanisms exist outside the Act’s framework, such as internal audits, parliamentary committees, and the Office of the Information Commissioner, that are specifically tasked with evaluating government information management practices. The institution further claimed that the requester’s use of the Act in this manner contravenes the spirit and intent of the legislation.

Discussion

The Commissioner will now examine whether the institution has convinced her that the access request is an abuse of the right of access.

Upon review of the parties’ submissions, she finds that the breadth of the 42-page request -- consisting of 196 items, many of which containing multiple prongs of requested information --, is exceedingly broad. Through their clarification responses, the requester added additional subitems and thus broadened the request. The result is a request of more than 42 pages that casts an extraordinarily large net. Additionally, this request seeks many different formats and metadata requirements and targets many offices of primary interest. The Commissioner finds that the breadth of the request far exceeds the legitimate exercise of the right to make a request.

It is not absolutely clear that the requester has an explicit desire to inundate or to unduly burden the institution, or to cause institutional strain. Nevertheless, it is evident that the breadth of the request is causing hardship to the institution, and its employees are feeling as if they are being harassed.

The Commissioner concludes that the institution demonstrated that the access request is an abuse of the right of access.

Given her conclusion, the Commissioner does not need to examine whether the access request is also vexatious or made in bad faith.

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

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

In exercising her discretion, she has 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 evidence before the Commissioner suggests that the institution made two main attempts to assist the requester. The institution first reached out to the requester to inform them that their request would need clarification. In response, the requester provided 20 emails, including clarification regarding each of the 196 items. Then, the institution provided an EXCEL spreadsheet with each of the items, the clarification previously provided by the requester and specific questions for each item. In response, the requester provided 126 additional lengthy emails.

The requester argued that the institution failed to fulfill its duty to assist as it engaged in communication methods inaccessible to the requester.

Based on the materials before me, there is no evidence suggesting that the requester objected to the specific communications methods used during the clarification process. The first time the requester indicated that this was an issue is when they responded to the present application. Other than this issue, the Commissioner sees no indication that the assistance provided by the institution may not have been accessible or reasonable in the circumstance.

Given the institution’s attempts to assist the requester, the Commissioner finds that it made every reasonable effort to assist the requester in the circumstances prior to submitting its application pursuant to subsection 6.1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner concludes that the institution established that it had met its duty to assist the requester.

Decision

The institution has established that the access request constitutes 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 the access request at issue.

Therefore, the application is granted.