Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted the following request to Le Conseil scolaire public de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest (Le Conseil) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ): Portions of accounting reports for each fiscal year end date, since inception of [Le Conseil]. Specifically Vendor Detail Reports showing all accounts paid or payable in each fiscal year, shown in ledger type report forms with all invoices received and payments made to every vendor during the year. If vendors are coded, the corresponding list of vendors names and the accounting code used as required to be able to analyze the data. A separate computer report should be produced for each fiscal year end date covering the entire year. The reports are requested on magnetic media, such as CD, ZIP Disk or floppy disk, and not printed on paper. Le Conseil refused to give access to the requested records in accordance with sections 4(1)(b) and 20.1 stating that the request is frivolous and vexatious. In particular, Le Conseil stated that: The request is part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access; The request is part of a pattern or conduct that would interfere with the operations of the institution; The request is made in bad faith; and The request is made for a purpose other than to obtain access. The appellant appealed this decision. During mediation of the appeal, Le Conseil advised the mediator that it believes that the appellant is flooding the institution with large access requests for reasons other than to obtain access. Le Conseil notes that there is on-going litigation between it and the appellant, and that it believes that the purpose behind the appellant's request (and several others that he has made which are currently on appeal) is to cause Le Conseil to expend resources to address the requests and subsequent appeals in order to harass it. Also during mediation, the appellant took the position that Le Conseil should have issued a decision in the alternative in the event that the frivolous and vexatious claim was not upheld at inquiry. In essence, the appellant is suggesting that Le Conseil has not issued a proper decision under the Act . This issue was not resolved during mediation and I will address it at inquiry. I decided to seek representations from Le Conseil, initially and sent it a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues at inquiry. Le Conseil submitted representations in response. After reviewing them, I decided that it was not necessary to hear from the appellant. PRELIMINARY MATTER: DOES LE CONSEIL'S JULY 30, 2001 DECISION CONSTITUTE A PROPER DECISION UNDER THE ACT ? As I noted above, the appellant takes the position that Le Conseil should have issued an access decision in the alternative to its claim that his request was frivolous and vexatious. Essentially, the appellant has questioned whether Le Conseil issued a decision in accordance with the access provisions of the Act . Sections 19 through 22 of the Act are relevant to this issue. These sections set out the procedure for institutions to follow in responding to an access request. Section 19 provides: Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 18, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 20, 21 and 45, within thirty days after the request is received, (a) give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether or not access to the record or a part of it will be given; and (b) if access is to be given, give the person who made the request access to the record or part, and if necessary for the purpose cause the record to be produced. [my emphasis] Sections 21 and 22 set out the specific procedures the institution is to follow in notifying affected parties and the particulars to be included in a notice of refusal to give access to a record. Section 20.1 of the Act states, however: (1) A head who refuses to give access to a record or a part of a record because the head is of the opinion that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious, shall state in the notice given under section 19, (a) that the request is refused because the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; (b) the reasons for which the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; and (c) that the person who made the request may appeal to the Commissioner under subsection 39(1) for a review of the decision. (2) Sections 21 and 22 do not apply to a head who gives a notice for the purpose of subsection (1). In my view, in enacting section 20.1, the Legislature very clearly intended that a claim that a request is frivolous or vexatious be available to an institution prior to it being required to perform any additional tasks with respect to the request. That does not mean that an institution is precluded from providing an alternative basis for refusing access to a requested record (if it believes there is a basis under the Act ), and often institutions do, in fact, provide a notice of refusal in accordance with section 22 of the Act . Based on the wording of the legislation, I find that, in issuing its decision pursuant to section 20.1, Le Conseil was not required to make an alternative decision on access at that time. DISCUSSION: FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS Introduction Several provisions of the Act and Regulations are relevant to the issue of whether the request is frivolous or vexatious. These provisions read as follows: Section 4(1)(b) of the Act : Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless, ... the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious. Section 20.1(1) of the Act : A head who refuses to give access to a record or a part of a record because the head is of the opinion that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious, shall state in the notice given under section 19, (a) that the request is refused because the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; (b) the reasons for which the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; and (c) that the person who made the request may appeal to the Commissioner under subsection 39(1) for a review of the decision. Section 5.1 of Regulation 823: A head of an institution that receives a request for access to a record or personal information shall conclude that the request is frivolous or vexatious if,
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The appellant submitted the following request to Le Conseil scolaire public de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest (Le Conseil) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act):
Portions of accounting reports for each fiscal year end date, since inception of [Le Conseil]. Specifically Vendor Detail Reports showing all accounts paid or payable in each fiscal year, shown in ledger type report forms with all invoices received and payments made to every vendor during the year. If vendors are coded, the corresponding list of vendors names and the accounting code used as required to be able to analyze the data.
A separate computer report should be produced for each fiscal year end date covering the entire year. The reports are requested on magnetic media, such as CD, ZIP Disk or floppy disk, and not printed on paper.
Le Conseil refused to give access to the requested records in accordance with sections 4(1)(b) and 20.1 stating that the request is frivolous and vexatious. In particular, Le Conseil stated that:
• The request is part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access;
• The request is part of a pattern or conduct that would interfere with the operations of the institution;
• The request is made in bad faith; and
• The request is made for a purpose other than to obtain access.
The appellant appealed this decision.
During mediation of the appeal, Le Conseil advised the mediator that it believes that the appellant is flooding the institution with large access requests for reasons other than to obtain access. Le Conseil notes that there is on-going litigation between it and the appellant, and that it believes that the purpose behind the appellant’s request (and several others that he has made which are currently on appeal) is to cause Le Conseil to expend resources to address the requests and subsequent appeals in order to harass it.
Also during mediation, the appellant took the position that Le Conseil should have issued a decision in the alternative in the event that the frivolous and vexatious claim was not upheld at inquiry. In essence, the appellant is suggesting that Le Conseil has not issued a proper decision under the Act. This issue was not resolved during mediation and I will address it at inquiry.
I decided to seek representations from Le Conseil, initially and sent it a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues at inquiry. Le Conseil submitted representations in response. After reviewing them, I decided that it was not necessary to hear from the appellant.
PRELIMINARY MATTER:
DOES LE CONSEIL’S JULY 30, 2001 DECISION CONSTITUTE A PROPER DECISION UNDER THE ACT?
As I noted above, the appellant takes the position that Le Conseil should have issued an access decision in the alternative to its claim that his request was frivolous and vexatious. Essentially, the appellant has questioned whether Le Conseil issued a decision in accordance with the access provisions of the Act.
Sections 19 through 22 of the Act are relevant to this issue. These sections set out the procedure for institutions to follow in responding to an access request.
Section 19 provides:
Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 18, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 20, 21 and 45, within thirty days after the request is received,
(a) give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether or not access to the record or a part of it will be given; and
(b) if access is to be given, give the person who made the request access to the record or part, and if necessary for the purpose cause the record to be produced. [my emphasis]
Sections 21 and 22 set out the specific procedures the institution is to follow in notifying affected parties and the particulars to be included in a notice of refusal to give access to a record.
Section 20.1 of the Act states, however:
(1) A head who refuses to give access to a record or a part of a record because the head is of the opinion that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious, shall state in the notice given under section 19,
(a) that the request is refused because the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious;
(b) the reasons for which the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; and
(c) that the person who made the request may appeal to the Commissioner under subsection 39(1) for a review of the decision.
(2) Sections 21 and 22 do not apply to a head who gives a notice for the purpose of subsection (1).
In my view, in enacting section 20.1, the Legislature very clearly intended that a claim that a request is frivolous or vexatious be available to an institution prior to it being required to perform any additional tasks with respect to the request. That does not mean that an institution is precluded from providing an alternative basis for refusing access to a requested record (if it believes there is a basis under the Act), and often institutions do, in fact, provide a notice of refusal in accordance with section 22 of the Act.
Based on the wording of the legislation, I find that, in issuing its decision pursuant to section 20.1, Le Conseil was not required to make an alternative decision on access at that time.
DISCUSSION:
FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS
Introduction
Several provisions of the Act and Regulations are relevant to the issue of whether the request is frivolous or vexatious. These provisions read as follows:
Section 4(1)(b) of the Act:
Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless, ...
the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious.
Section 20.1(1) of the Act:
A head who refuses to give access to a record or a part of a record because the head is of the opinion that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious, shall state in the notice given under section 19,
(a) that the request is refused because the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious;
(b) the reasons for which the head is of the opinion that the request is frivolous or vexatious; and
(c) that the person who made the request may appeal to the Commissioner under subsection 39(1) for a review of the decision.
Section 5.1 of Regulation 823:
A head of an institution that receives a request for access to a record or personal information shall conclude that the request is frivolous or vexatious if,
(a) the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request is part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access or would interfere with the operations of the institution; or
(b) the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request is made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to obtain access.
In Order M-850, Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson stated:
In January 1996, the Legislature amended section 4 of the Act, thereby providing institutions with a summary mechanism to deal with requests which the institution views as frivolous or vexatious. These legislative provisions confer a significant discretionary power on institutions which can have serious implications on the ability of a requester to obtain information under the Act. In my view, this power should not be exercised lightly.
…
Section 42 of the Act places a burden on institutions to demonstrate the application of exemptions. It does not offer specific guidance on the burden of proof regarding decisions that a request is frivolous or vexatious. However, the general law is that the burden of proving an assertion falls on the party making the assertion. On this basis, I find that an institution invoking section 4(1)(b) of the Act has the burden of proof.
Order MO-1477
Order MO-1477 disposed of the claim by Le Conseil that another request submitted by the appellant was frivolous and vexatious. This order was issued by Assistant Commissioner Mitchinson on October 17, 2001, the same day that Le Conseil’s representations were received in the current appeal. I note that the submissions made in this appeal are virtually identical to those submitted to the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal which resulted in Order MO-1477. After reading both Le Conseil’s submissions and the decision in Order MO-1477, I find myself in complete agreement with the conclusions reached by Assistant Commissioner Mitchinson and will, therefore, refer to them extensively below.