|
OVERVIEW
Section 43 allows the head
of a public body to ask the Information and Privacy Commissioner to authorize
the public body to disregard a request made under section 5 or section 29. The
Commissioner may give such authorization only if the request is repetitious or
systematic in nature and unreasonably interferes with the operation of the
public body.
SECTION REFERENCE
SUMMARY
This section grants the Commissioner the power to authorize a public body to disregard requests, if the requests are repetitious or systematic in nature and interfere unreasonably with public body
operations, or if the requests are frivolous or vexatious. This applies to
both requests for access to information and requests for correction of personal
information.
POLICY
- Representations to the Commissioner for authorization to disregard requests under section 43 must relate to
requests that are repetitious, systematic or frivolous, or vexatious.
PROCEDURE
- The head of the public body will make a written request for authorization under section 43 to the Commissioner. The standard practice of the Commissioner is to provide a copy of the head of the public body’s request for authorization to the person(s) affected by the public body’s request.
- When applying to the Commissioner for section 43 authorization, the head of the public body will make their request in writing and consider the following factors:
-
evidence that the public body has exercised considerable restraint and made every effort to assist the applicant under section 6;
-
an explanation of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests in question, as evidenced by the number of requests received, frequency and/or repetition;
-
an explanation and evidence of how the requests have unreasonably interfered with the operation of the public body, including staff and resource allocation to the requests;
-
the applicant is using the Act as a weapon of information warfare, retaliation for past action or tool for harassment;
-
the public body’s response to an applicant has led to additional requests for more records and information related to the same topic;
-
the applicant is not using the Act for purposes for which it was intended and the applicant is not acting in good faith;
-
the request is not being made to obtain information or achieve a legitimate
correction of information, but rather to tie up the resources of the public body
or frustrate the administration of a particular program or activity;
-
the request has no sound basis in fact or is malicious;
-
the applicant is making unreasonable demands on the staff of the public body to process requests;
-
specific evidence that the applicant has generated requests that were submitted under a variety of names;
-
the applicant’s own statements which demonstrate his or her intentions;
-
the outcome in a different tribunal or court regarding the same subject
matter.
INTERPRETATION
"repetitious" repeating or being repeated; copy, replica; saying by heart, piece to be said so.
"systematic" methodical; arranged, conducted, according to system; deliberate.
"frivolous" lacking a legal basis or
legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful.
"vexatious" without reasonable or
probable cause or excuse; harassing; annoying.
Examples:
-
Continual requests for records that a public body has already established it
does not have.
-
An applicant continues to apply repeatedly for the same or similar
information even though the original request has been disposed of and there is
nothing new or different in the responsive records.
-
An applicant makes a large number of the same or similar requests.
-
Requests that show an intention to harass a public body, to "break"
the system or to engage in "information warfare".
REFERENCES
|
