Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 57

Date of decision: July 2026

Summary

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 72 access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. According to the institution, the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request and are vexatious.

The Commissioner concludes that the institution has demonstrated that all of the access requests, except one, constitute an abuse of the right to make a request. In addition, she concludes that the circumstances warranted she provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on these access requests.

The application is partially granted.

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 requests at issue

On June 10, 2025, the institution sought the Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on 72 access requests received between November 12, 2024 and May 20, 2025. According to the institution, these access requests primarily seek records relating to the requester’s client (the “Client Company”), a type of air operations and the interpretation of a provision of the applicable regulatory standards (the “Standards”).

According to the institution, the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request and are vexatious.

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

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 focusses 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 records 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 extent to which the requester was willing to cooperate with the institution.

The institution submits that the access requests would overburden it, are repetitive and are made with a purpose other than obtaining information.

Overburdening

The institution explains that the requester made a total of 336 access requests since September 25, 2023, which represent 37.1% of all access requests received during this period. The institution also states that it responded to 186 of these requests, providing a total of 27,000 pages. Furthermore, the institution believes there is no indication that the requester will stop making access requests.

According to the institution, the volume and complexity of the access requests made by this individual, as well as the number of complaints they have filed, would place a disproportionate demand on the resources of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office, as well as those of the office of primary interest (OPI) affected by these requests, thereby negatively affecting the access rights of other requesters.

The institution also explains that its ATIP office has 15 analysts, 4 team leaders and 5 consultants hired specifically to address the backlog of access requests. The institution states that, in order to process this individual’s access requests and alleviate the analysts’ workload, the 4 team leaders and certain consultants had to be assigned to these requests, despite their regular duties. The institution also notes that several analysts must work overtime to expedite the processing of these requests. In the spring of 2025, the institution even assigned a team leader exclusively to this individual’s access requests.

The institution also submits that the individual’s access requests affect a particular OPI, as these requests are almost always assigned to that same OPI. These requests would place a burden on the OPI that would prevent it from providing, in a timely manner, records responsive to the access requests of the individual subject to the application, as well as records responsive to the access requests of other requesters. Furthermore, the individual’s access requests would impair the OPI’s ability to fulfill its other obligations.

The institution also submits that it attempted to reduce the burden associated with the access requests at issue by asking the OPI not to retrieve records that had already been provided and instead simply indicate in response to which other access requests those records had been provided. However, the requester refused to proceed in that manner.

Repetition

The institution also explains that the access requests of the individual subject to the application all relate to the same subject, namely the type of air operations at issue, and that this subject is specific. Consequently, these access requests significantly overlap. According to the institution, the responses provided to the requester are variations of records that have already been provided. The institution further states that discussions with the various affected OPIs have repeatedly confirmed that all records related to this subject have already been provided. Moreover, throughout the processing of these access requests, no new terminology or technical terms have emerged, which, according to the OPIs, further supports the position that all relevant records have already been provided. Finally, the institution submits that these air operations are no longer actively discussed within the institution, meaning that new access requests covering a broader period, including the most recent records, would not yield any new records.

Purpose of the access requests

The institution submits that the present case is similar to that considered in decision 2022 OIC 35, where the requester made eight repetitive access requests and the Commissioner concluded that the purpose of the access request at issue was not to obtain information, but rather to assert the requester’s right of access.

Discussion

The Commissioner now assesses whether the access requests constitute an abuse of the right to make a request. This application highlights the importance of examining the scope, nature and cumulative effect of the 72 access requests, rather than analyzing them in silos. As explained in greater detail below, these requests arise in a particular context.

The requester, formerly employed by the institution, now works for a consulting firm that provides services to the client company. On behalf of the client company, the requester designed, implemented and led the development of an air operations program. This pilot project was suspended following the client company’s receipt of a letter issued by an employee of the institution setting out an interpretation of a provision of the Standards (the “Letter”). According to that interpretation, the client company could no longer continue its air operations program.

The requester believes that the decision set out in the Letter is unjustified and has since sought, through various means, to reinstate the client company’s pilot project. These efforts have included engagement with industry stakeholders, legal proceedings and numerous access to information requests. Since receiving the Letter, the requester has sought to understand, in particular, the basis for and circumstances surrounding the interpretation formulated in the Letter.

To that end, in September 2023, the requester, together with at least one colleague from the consulting firm, developed a strategic plan to make a large number of access requests in order to obtain information from the institution regarding the interpretation of the applicable provision of the Standards, the air operations at issue and the circumstances surrounding the Letter. According to this plan, the requests were to be divided between the requester and their colleague(s).

Between September 25, 2023 and May 27, 2025, the requester made a total of 336 access requests to the institution, representing 37.1% of all access requests received by the institution during this period. The institution responded to 186 of these requests and intends to respond to 78 others. The remaining 72 requests are the subject of this application.

It is within this broader context that this application must be considered.

The Commissioner first r whether the access requests at issue are repetitive and whether they pursue a purpose other than obtaining information. As for the burden imposed by the access requests, it must be assessed in light of the effects resulting from the implementation of the strategic plan.

Are the access requests repetitive?

The Commissioner considers an access request to be repetitive where it does not seek any new records.

The requester acknowledges having intentionally made duplicate access requests, which are listed in Annex A. Given this admission, the Commissioner concludes that the access requests listed in Annex A are repetitive.

However, despite the institution’s claims, it is not clear that the other access requests are repetitive. The institution states that all records relating to the subject have already been provided in response to previous access requests and that responding to the access requests that are the subject of this application would merely involve providing a different combination of records already provided. That said, the institution also states that the requester’s access requests have broadened to encompass new subjects, including the following:

metadata for records previously provided
briefing materials provided to the institution’s ministers regarding the Letter
records indicating when the individual viewed certain disclosure records
records relating to retired employees who were the subject of previous access requests

It appears contradictory that, on the one hand, all records have been provided and, on the other, that the requests have broadened to encompass new records. Some access requests may be repetitive, while others may have broadened, but the institution has not provided sufficient representations to allow the Commissioner to distinguish between the two. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot conclude that the remaining access requests are repetitive.

Having concluded that the access requests listed in Annex A are repetitive, the Commissioner must next determine whether they constitute an abuse of the right to make a request.

Repetitive access requests made without legitimate justification and in the absence of any new or relevant information constitute an abuse of the right to make a request. In some cases, a change in circumstances or loss of records already obtained may create a situation where a repetitive request is warranted.

In the present case, the requester explains that these duplicates were made to obtain missing records or records that could not be located in the institution’s responses. The requester further explains that they were unable to file complaints in those instances because the time limit for doing so had expired. The requester therefore made repetitive access requests in order to regain the right to file a complaint.

By making repetitive access requests to regain the right to file a complaint, the requester was attempting to circumvent the time limit imposed by the Act. There are good reasons why the Act imposes a time limit to file a complaint. For example, this time limit helps to ensure complaints are investigated in a timely manner while reliable evidence is available. Furthermore, the finality imparted by the time limit allows parties to move forward without indefinite exposure to legal risk. As such, requesters must exercise their right to file a complaint in accordance with the requirements of the Act or risk losing the opportunity to do so.

Ultimately, the Commissioner finds that there was no justification in the circumstances for making repetitive requests. For this reason, she concludes that the access requests listed in Annex A are repetitive and constitute an abuse of the right to make a request.

Are the access requests made with a purpose other than obtaining records or information?

The institution submits that the present case is similar to that considered in decision 2022 OIC 35. In that decision, the Commissioner noted, among other things, the repetitive nature of the requests and the requester’s refusal to narrow the time period covered in order to avoid duplication, which led the Commissioner to determine that the purpose of the request was not to obtain information. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the purpose of the access request was not to obtain information, but rather to assert the requester’s right of access.

The Commissioner acknowledges that the present case bears certain similarities. On the one hand, there is significant overlap among the access requests. On the other hand, the institution provided the requester with a practical solution to this problem, namely, by not including in its new responses records already provided in response to previous access requests and instead indicating in which of those responses they could be found.

However, the similarities with decision 2022 OIC 35 end there. First, the requester does not appear to have initially objected to this approach. Although they later changed their position, this appears reasonable in light of the way the institution handled the requests: some responses referred the requester to records that had not yet been disclosed. Second, the overall context surrounding the access requests at issue demonstrates a genuine interest in obtaining the information sought. In particular, the requester carefully analyzes the records received in order to formulate new access requests, a behaviour that is difficult to reconcile with a purpose other than obtaining information.

Therefore, the institution has not convinced the Commissioner that the access requests pursue a purpose other than obtaining records. Consequently, the Commissioner cannot conclude, on that basis, that there has been an abuse of the right to make a request.

The unduly systematic use of access requests constitutes a form of abuse of the right of access.

Systematic access requests are generally requests “characterized by a system” in which a request is made according to a plan that is organized and carried out according to a set of rules or principles (see Besler v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 BCSC 662, at paragraph 53). They involve a regular or deliberate course of conduct.

Some characteristics of systematic access requests include the following:

a pattern of requesting more records, based on what the respondent sees in records already received;
combing over records deliberately in order to identify further issues;
revisiting earlier freedom of information requests;
submitting new access requests seeking information on the institution’s processing of previous access requests;
systematically raising issues with the institution about their responses to access requests;
a behaviour suggesting that the requester has no intention of stopping the flow of requests, all of which relate to essentially the same records, communications, people and events; and
an increase in the frequency of requests over time.

This list is not exhaustive, and the presence or absence of any of these characteristics is not, in itself, determinative. Other relevant factors may also be considered depending on the facts of each case.

The mere fact that a request is made systematically does not mean that it constitutes an abuse of the right of access. To constitute an abuse of the right of access, a request must be unduly systematic.

Unduly systematic requests are generally those that unreasonably interfere with the operation of an institution. In particular, this may be the case when requests, taken as a whole:

would needlessly increase the costs and time the institution devotes to fulfilling its legal obligations with respect to access
would overburden the institution and/or prevent it from responding to other access requests (and, consequently, prevent other requesters from exercising their right of access)
would require the repeated retrieval and review of a significant volume of records already retrieved in response to previous access requests, where the likelihood of new records being disclosed is low or nonexistent

This list is not exhaustive. The examples provided are not, in themselves, determinative and do not replace the assessment required to determine whether requests unreasonably interfere with the operation of the institution; rather, they should be considered as part of an overall assessment of their effects.

The question of whether a request is unduly systematic is a question of fact that must be assessed in light of the evidence specific to each case. The heavy burden of proof rests with the institution, which must provide clear and convincing evidence to support its allegations. Mere allegations are insufficient.

Are the access requests systematic?

In their representations, the requester states the following:

As early as September 2023, before the first exemption requests were even submitted, I developed a strategic plan to structure record searches, address information gaps and support the resumption of the program. This plan is attached as Annex 8.

The annex in question outlines a strategy for making access requests regarding the air operations at issue, which is divided into two stages. The first concerns records created before the Letter and the second concerns those created afterwards. Each stage includes numerous elements and sub-elements.

In light of this strategic plan, it is clear that the access requests listed in Annex B are intended to implement it. They constitute a series of successive requests made in a structured manner, following an organized plan and established rules. Consequently, they meet the definition of systematic access requests.

Furthermore, the parties’ written submissions reveal several characteristics of systematic requests. In particular, the requester meticulously and deliberately reviews the records received and makes new requests based on elements noted in those records. In some cases, they have made access requests regarding the processing of previous access requests. They also systematically raise with the institution what they perceive to be incomplete disclosures or new concerns. Taken together, these circumstances also lead the Commissioner to conclude that the requester does not genuinely intend to bring the stream of requests to an end, despite their assertions to the contrary.

The requester submits that requests [translation] “A-2024-00811, A-2024-00812, A-2024-813 and A-2024-00976, among others,” do not concern either their client or the air operations at issue. However, the institution’s application also concerns requests relating to other related subjects. These include, in particular, the interpretation of the relevant provision of the Standards, as set out in the institution’s Letter. The mere fact that a request does not expressly refer to the air operations at issue, the client company or the relevant provision of the Standards is not determinative.

For example, requests A-2024-00811, A-2024-00812 and A-2024-813 concern an exemption relating to two sections of the applicable regulations (the “Regulations”). Although they do not appear, at first glance, to concern the air operations at issue, a careful review reveals that they ultimately concern the interpretation and/or application of the provisions relating to those operations.

Regarding request A-2024-00976, the Commissioner acknowledges that it does not mention either the client company or the air operations at issue. Rather, it seeks to understand how the recommendations of two employees of the institution were taken into account. However, when examined in light of request A-2024-00494 (not the subject of this application), it appears that request A-2024-00976 forms part of a series of systematic access requests. Indeed, request A-2024-00494 describes a broader context, including discussions regarding difficulties in processing access requests concerning exemptions related to the air operations at issue, owing to the decentralized and paper-based manner in which the records are kept. It also refers to exchanges with one of the two aforementioned employees, during which that employee is said to have mentioned the existence of a report on the matter.

That said, the request listed in Annex C concerns access to information and privacy training. It does not appear to be related to either the strategic plan or the air operations at issue. Therefore, it does not form part of the series of systematic requests concerning those subjects.

Are the access requests in Annex B unduly systematic?

The mere fact that the requester systematically made the access requests listed in Annex B is not, in itself, an abuse of the right of access. To determine whether these requests constitute an abuse of that right, it is necessary to consider their effects and all the surrounding circumstances.

Between September 25, 2023 and May 27, 2025, the requester made 336 access requests to the institution. With few exceptions, most of these requests were intended to implement the strategic plan. The institution has responded to 186 of these requests and intends to respond to 78 others. The remaining 72 requests are the subject of this application. Of those requests, 71 form part of a series of requests made systematically to obtain information relating to the subjects identified in the strategic plan.

Thousands of pages of records relating to these subjects have been disclosed to date. The numerous access requests have resulted in the reallocation of resources, including employees and consultants, as well as overtime work, due to the heavy workload generated by these multiple requests. Furthermore, the task of retrieving the records responsive to each access request has fallen primarily to a single OPI.

The access requests listed in Annex B relate, to varying degrees, to the type of air operations at issue, as well as to the interpretation and application of the relevant provision of the Standards. The strategic plan divides these subjects into two phases, namely before and after the Letter, and further breaks them down into areas of interest. The two phases correspond to the periods before and after the institution’s Letter. There are approximately fifteen areas of interest, each giving rise to a separate, targeted access request. These areas of interest are then assigned to several individuals, including the requester, who are tasked with making the corresponding requests.

The division of the main subjects into subtopics, or areas of interest, does not make the institution’s task any easier, since it necessarily results in significant overlap among the records retrieved. Furthermore, assigning responsibility for submitting access requests to several individuals only exacerbates the problem. Consequently, the institution must review the same records multiple times to identify those relevant to the requester’s areas of interest. In practice, rather than requesting all records relating to their two main subjects in a single request and conducting the subtopic-based review themselves, the requester filed hundreds of separate requests. As a result, the institution is effectively required to carry out that subtopic-based review on the requester’s behalf, a task that appears to be substantial.

Over time, what was presumably the subject of about fifteen access requests at the outset has expanded to become the subject of several hundred requests. In this regard, both the institution and the requester share some responsibility.

On the one hand, the requester gradually broadened their areas of interest. Notably, the requests cover a multitude of specialized subjects and concern an increasing number of employees. A shift can also be observed toward related requests concerning more peripheral aspects, such as:

A-2024-00987, a request seeking records related to the rehiring of a retired employee who is said to have identified concerns regarding the safety of the air operations at issue. The request seeks, among other things, any records relating to the reasons for their rehiring, including why no other qualified person could perform the duties associated with this position, a description of the scope of work performed under each assignment entrusted to them, their responsibilities, salary and compensation, security clearance and ministerial delegations, etc.
A-2024-00712, a request seeking records, including metadata, indicating the date and time at which the requester consulted records provided in response to two other access requests.

On the other hand, certain institutional practices relating to the processing of requests appear to have exacerbated the number of requests and the overlap among them. In particular, the requester submits the following:

When a record is missing from file A, [the institution] refers to file B, but the latter does not always contain the records in question. This requires filing new requests (C, D, etc.) to fill the gaps.

Example: Request A-2023-00284 was closed on the grounds that all the records were in A-2023-00574. However, risk assessments were missing. It was necessary to file A-2024-00986, and then A-2024-00638, to identify the missing elements.

Although the practices identified by the requester are problematic, the solution in such a case would be to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner rather than submit new access requests in an effort to fill the gaps. By submitting these new access requests, the requester is, in turn, only exacerbating the problem, particularly by creating a significant overlap between the requests.

Even taking into account the institution’s share of responsibility, it is clear that the access requests, taken as a whole, unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution.

Inevitably, the granular approach used by the requester and the follow-up requests intended to “fill the gaps” needlessly increase the costs and the time spent by the institution to fulfill its obligations under the Act. Given that thousands of pages have already been disclosed, there would likely be significant overlap among the access requests.

Moreover, these systematic requests have created a significant burden in the circumstances. The approach used required the reassignment of staff and consultants, the use of overtime and the review of a considerable volume of records. Furthermore, since the requests listed in Annex B relate primarily to the same subject, their impact falls primarily on a single OPI. Given the high number of access requests concerning the same general subject, the Commissioner finds that processing the requests covered by this application would compromise the ability of that OPI, as well as the ATIP office, to meet their other obligations. Having to repeatedly review the same records, or subsets thereof, overburdens the institution and thereby hinders the exercise of other requesters’ right of access.

Ultimately, the Commissioner acknowledges the possibility that the majority of access requests listed in Annex B seek records that have not necessarily been disclosed to date. However, the Commissioner finds that, in the circumstances, processing the 71 access requests included in Annex B would require the retrieval and review of a significant volume of records already gathered as part of previous requests. Given the 186 access requests to which the institution has already responded, and without taking into account the additional 78 access requests to which it will be responding, the Commissioner finds that the likelihood of these new requests resulting in the disclosure of a significant volume of new records is low. In these circumstances, she is satisfied that the work required to process them would be disproportionate.

For all these reasons, the Commissioner concludes that the access requests listed in Annex B are unduly systematic and therefore constitute an abuse of the right of access.

Given that the access requests listed in Annexes A and B constitute an abuse of the right to make a request, the Commissioner need not consider whether they are also vexatious.

As mentioned above, the access request in Annex C seeks records relating to ATIP training for a group of the institution’s employees. The Commissioner is not convinced that it falls within the series of systematic requests described above. She therefore cannot conclude that it constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request. Furthermore, the facts relied on and the circumstances described by the institution in support of its position that the requests are vexatious do not appear to apply to the request listed in Annex C.

Do the circumstances warrant that the Commissioner grants her approval to the institution?

The institution has established that one of the requirements set out in subsection 6.1(1) applies to the access requests listed in Annexes A and B. The Commissioner must now exercise her discretionary power to either grant or refuse the application.

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

Impact of the withdrawal of certain access requests

The requester indicated that some of the access requests covered by this application have been withdrawn or amended. Be that as it may, the late withdrawal or amendment of certain access requests at issue does not alter the fact that the requests listed in Annex A remain repetitive and that those listed in Annex B are unduly systematic, nor does it affect the Commissioner’s exercise of her discretion.

With respect to the withdrawn requests, the Commissioner acknowledges that the institution will not be required to take any further action on them, regardless of the decision rendered on this application.

Duty to assist

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 relevant facts and circumstances, and must be assessed case by case.

The institution has demonstrated that it communicated with the requester on numerous occasions to assist them. In particular, it offered:

to exclude transitory and third-party records;
to revise the scope and wording of certain access requests;
to follow up with the OPIs when the requester claimed that records were missing;
to conduct additional searches when no records could be located during the initial searches;
to assist the requester in locating records within the responses;
to transfer access requests from other individuals within the same organization;
to confirm the existence or absence of attachments;
to resend responses to access requests;
to assist the requester in making new access requests;
to direct the requester to subject matter experts within the institution;
to assist the requester in narrowing the scope of certain complaints regarding exemptions;
to obtain clarification regarding the identity of the individuals who created certain records;
to advise the requester that the institution does not create new records in response to an access request; and
to combine duplicate access requests.

Furthermore, the institution states that it offered the requester a practical solution to expedite the processing of overlapping access requests, namely by referring the requester to previously provided records rather than reprocessing duplicate records.

The requester states that the institution did not fulfill its duty to assist because the proposed solution would have been imprecise, arbitrary and prone to errors.

The Commissioner acknowledges that the solution proposed by the institution was imperfect and ultimately proved to be more a source of problems than a practical solution. That said, while the solution ultimately failed, it does not appear to have resulted from any lack of effort on the institution’s part to assist the requester. In other words, the Commissioner does not find that this failure demonstrates that the institution failed to make every reasonable effort to assist the requester.

In light of the above, the Commissioner concludes that the institution has fulfilled its duty to assist.

Public Interest

The requester states that this case raises public safety concerns because the restrictions imposed by the institution regarding the air operations at issue jeopardize certain missions.

The Commissioner acknowledges that the records requested by the requester may be of public interest. That said, she considers this interest to be minimal, given that the vast majority of the requested records have already been provided, representing thousands of pages. Furthermore, as the Commissioner noted above, the investment of time and resources would be disproportionate: considerable time and resources would need to be devoted to these access requests, only to yield a few records that have not already been disclosed.

Given the time and resources required for these access requests and the minimal benefit to be gained, the Commissioner finds that it is in the public interest to authorize the institution not to respond to the access requests listed in Annexes A and B.

Decision

The institution has established that the access requests listed in Annexes A and B meet the requirements of subsection 6.1(1).

The circumstances warrant that the Commissioner provides her approval to the institution to decline to act on the access requests listed in Annexes A and B.

However, the institution has not established that the access request listed in Annex C meets the requirements of subsection 6.1(1).

The institution also requested that limits be placed on future access requests from the requester or any other individual acting on their behalf. Nothing indicates to the Commissioner that such limits are necessary. In the circumstances, there is no need to examine whether limits should be imposed.

The application is partially granted.