Decisions

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.

The Information Commissioner of Canada gives notice under subsection 30(5) of the Access to Information Act that she has ceased to investigate complaint 5819-02602, pursuant to paragraph 30(4)(a). This paragraph allows the Commissioner to cease to investigate a complaint when, in her opinion, a complaint is trivial, frivolous or vexatious, or is made in bad faith.

The complainant indicated that they wanted to pursue the matter as a point of principle although the matter for which the information was sought has already been settled. The complainant’s seeming lack of interest in obtaining access to the records and their request to continue to investigate, solely on a matter of principle, makes the complaint trivial.

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had improperly withheld information under subsection 24(1) (disclosure restricted by another law), paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) database for all recipient corporations.

In the present instance, the schedule II provision claimed by CRA is section 241 of the Income Tax Act. Section 241 contains a general prohibition of the disclosure of taxpayer information, subject to certain limited exceptions.

The Office of the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the information at issue is about identifiable taxpayers that was prepared from information obtained by CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act, and the Commissioner concluded that the information was properly withheld pursuant to subsection 24(1).

Since paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 19(1) of the Act were applied concurrently to the same information that was exempted pursuant to subsection 24(1), it was not necessary to determine whether refusal to disclose the same information could also be justified under paragraph 16(1)(c) and subsection 19(1).

The complaint is not well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not conduct a reasonable search under the Access to Information Act when responding to an access request seeking records relating to the RCMP’s “E Norther” file.

The request identified the RCMP’s Legal Services Unit as potentially having records but the RCMP initially refused to task this area stating that responsive records would not be under its control. The investigation found that the records, if they existed, would likely be under the RCMP’s control for the purposes of the Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the RCMP to confirm if additional records existed and, if so, to process these records in accordance with the Act.The RCMP gave notice to the Information Commissioner that records had been identified and that an additional response was sent to the complainant.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) did not respond to an access request by the extended due date under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request was for all documents regarding the Copyright Media Clearance Program for the period January 1, 2018 to June 12, 2019. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act. PSPC had not responded to the access request when the extension of time expired on September 4, 2020. The issue of whether the extension of time was reasonable is moot.

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to provide a final response to the access request within 10 days after the day on which the order takes effect under paragraph 36.1(4)

PSPC gave notice that it would not be fully implementing the order.