Report 22 - Access to Information Review Task Force

SURVEY OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION UNITS
IN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

ANNEX 3

No criteria were noted, this Co-ordinator would be very reluctant to deny access to records even if it was thought that the purpose of the request was simply to harass the agency on an issue where the requester disagreed with the policy or position of the agency.

One institution wished not to express an opinion or consider requests to be “frivolous, vexatious or abusive” because it receives and processes each request within the parameters of the existing legislation and policy guidelines

One institution would consider requests to be frivolous, vexatious or abusive if a requester based in the National Capital Region consistently failed to pay for photocopies and failed to review the records on site.

The Act requires requesters to pay fees for photocopies of requested records. Should the requester choose not to pay the prescribed fees, then the requester may choose to review the records at the institution’s offices. This institution finds it unacceptable for a requester residing in the National Capital Region to request large volumes of records, fail to pay the photocopy fees and fail to view the records.

Currently, there are no specific criteria to apply to assess a request as frivolous, vexatious or abusive.

The department would consider requests to be frivolous, vexatious or abusive if a requester knowingly and continuously made requests for the same information that had already been provided in response to previous requests, likely in order to try to keep a specific issue on the political agenda.

The purpose of the Act is to provide access to information in records under the control of government institutions in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public. It could be considered an abuse of the Act to use it for purposes other than those stipulated in section 2 of the Act.

Since there are currently no provisions for refusing frivolous or vexatious requests, they have not considered what such criteria would be. All requests are treated. They do not question the motives or intent of requesters when processing requests.

Possibly frivolous, vexatious or abusive categories: all records on too general a subject area; a request covering a variety of clearly different subject areas; a request for records created over an unreasonable time frame (years); unintelligible requests; nonsense requests (“all communications between the department and aliens from other planets in the solar system”)

Unintelligible requests does not mean requests that are a bit unclear or vague. They are the ones where no sense at all can be made of them; while a case might be made for suggesting that clarification be sought from the applicant, most such communication is unproductive. The other categories may be more difficult to justify, but it would seem that such requests do not serve the intended purpose of the ATI Act and, notwithstanding the provisions of fees and time extensions, are an unreasonable drain on resources (and are processed at the expense of other applicants). They should be considered in conjunction with a recommendation to have the Act stipulate that a request shall be for a specific record or subject area, and shall encompass a reasonable time frame.

The fact that the individual submits several requests on the particular topic for which records have already been provided and the individual has been advised that these are the only records held by the department would indicate that the request is frivolous and vexatious.

The scope of request, ability to respond appropriately, how request affects operations of ATI division and that of the institution; is information already available publicly; has requester conducted research prior to request, how much time and resources will request use, etc.

Based on past experience researchers are usually not aware of alternate mechanisms of access (ie: libraries, research services, information available on the web, etc), nor are they fully sure of the topic. For example asking for information concerning all records on WW II would not be considered as a formal request since there are literally hundreds of thousands of archival documents presently open and available. We stress the need for researchers to use the services of our researcher services who can provide information concerning given research topics.

Factors that make requests problematic:

• Serial requesters repeatedly seeking the same material.
• Submission of a single request for documents concerning multiple issues when a number of separate requests would be appropriate.
• Requests for non-sensible records.

One institution noted that it would consider a request abusive if the requester had used abusive language in his or her request. It would also consider a request abusive if it appeared that the Act was being used to attack an individual or the institution. The institution also noted that the intent to be frivolous or vexatious would have to be in the requester’s mind. In other words, the institution would not consider a request to be vexatious or frivolous just because it considers the request to be a nuisance.

Requesters filing repetitively for the same documents. Requesters are well known in one department for repeatedly requesting the same documents about themselves and subsequently for the same related correspondence and other documents identified in their files. These individuals tend to believe that the government is monitoring them.

Another department has a few requesters who repeatedly ask for the same records (not updated) about their businesses. They may have forgotten what they originally asked for, or their records may be disorganized, so they file for records they have earlier requested.

Next Page

Return to Table of Contents