Decisions

Date of decision: January 2024

Summary

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, this request was vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further claimed that it had met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner found that the institution showed that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. The Commissioner also found that the institution established that the access request was an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on an access request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, the request is both an abuse of the right to make a request and vexatious. The institution further claims that it met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner finds that the institution showed that it fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. The institution, however, did not establish that the access request is either an abuse of the right to make a request or vexatious.

The application is not granted.

An institution submitted an application seeking the Information Commissioner’s approval to decline to act on three access requests under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In the institution’s opinion, these requests are made in bad faith and are an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further claims that it met its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act.

The Commissioner finds that the institution did show that it had fulfilled its duty to assist the requester prior to seeking approval to decline to act. She also finds that the institution established that the access requests are an abuse of the right to make a request.

The application is granted.

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

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

The application is denied.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the right to make a request. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right to make a request. The Commissioner also found that the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to further consider whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner, under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, for approval to decline to act on an access to information request. The institution submitted that the request is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the right of access. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Information Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access.  In particular, the Commissioner found that the request is part of a pattern of behaviour involving the requester’s repeated requests for substantively the same information. The Commissioner also noted that most of the information being sought has either been provided by the requester to the institution, or has already been provided to the requester by the institution. The Commissioner also found that the institution met its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to further consider whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is granted.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two requests for access to information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution stated that the access requests were vexatious and constituted an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records. The institution further submitted that it had met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the request.

The Commissioner found that the institution not only did not fulfill its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) of the Act, but it also failed to establish that the requests were made in bad faith or were otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request.

The Commissioner denied the applications.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access to information request under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. In its application, the institution submitted that the request was both vexatious and an abuse of the right of access.

The Information Commissioner found that the institution established that the request is an abuse of the right of access. Given the Commissioner’s conclusion, it was not necessary to consider as well whether the request was also vexatious.

The application is approved.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on two requests for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act (the Act). In its application, the institution submitted that the requests are vexatious, made in bad faith and are otherwise an abuse of the right of access. It also maintained that it met its duty to assist the requester in connection with the requests.

The Commissioner found that the institution did not establish that the requests are vexatious, made in bad faith or are otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request. The Commissioner also found that the institution did not establish that it fulfilled its duty to assist obligations under subsection 4(2.1) prior to seeking approval to decline to act on the requests.

The application is denied and the institution is required to act on the access requests.

An institution submitted an application to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on a request for information under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The head of the institution was of the opinion that the request - for all internal correspondence of the institution over a period of seven years - constitutes an abuse of the right of access.

The requester declined to make submissions in relation to this application.

The Commissioner found that the institution met its burden of establishing that the access request is an abuse of the right of access. Specifically, the overbroad scope of the request, in combination with the small size of the institution, its limited resources, and the impact upon the institution’s ability to fulfill its mandate all weigh in favour of finding that the request is an abuse of the right of access.

The Commissioner granted the application.