I have reviewed the application of the Public Service Employee
Relations Commission under section 43 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for authorization to disregard
requests made by [the respondent] under section 5 of the Act.
Section 43 gives me the power to authorize a public body to disregard requests
under section 5 that, because of their repetitious or systematic nature, would
unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body, in this case the
Public Service Employee Relations Commission.
Since the purpose of the Act is to make government bodies more accountable to
the public by giving the public a right of access to records, authorization to
disregard should be given sparingly and only in obviously meritorious cases.
Authorizations under section 43 should not be seen as a routine option
for public bodies to avoid their obligations under the legislation.
I have carefully reviewed the submissions of the Public Service Employee
Relations Commission and the response of [the respondent], as well as the
series of requests which led PSERC to make the application, and find as
follows:
1. The Commissioner of PSERC wrote to me on May 15, 1997 requesting the
application of section 43 of the Act to [the respondent]. He provided copies
of a series of requests from the applicant to the Minister of Finance and
PSERC, and commented specifically about one dated April 26, 1997:
Since the beginning of 1996, this Commission has received eight similarly
lengthy letters from [the respondent], within which [the respondent] makes
obscure references to the Act and its potential remedies for present and past
crimes [he/she] alleges have been committed by various public bodies against
[him/her]. The applicant appears unable to accept the responses provided to
[him/her] by this public body and each subsequent correspondence or telephone
call from the applicant merely reiterates the same accusations of fraud and
allegations of wrongdoing by this public body.
The letters referred to by the Commissioner for PSERC comprise over 400
separate pages and reinforce for me the accuracy of his observation.
2. The Commissioner of PSERC further submitted that:
. . . I am aware of no deliberate attempts by public servants, in the ethical
conduct of their duties, to cause [the respondent] harm or deny [him/her] any
due process. Our agency has been working with representatives of the B.C.
Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU) to resolve [the respondent]'s
grievances humanely and responsibly.
PSERC advises that these efforts at resolution are continuing and I note, from
my review of its letters of response to the [respondent], that PSERC has gone
out of its way to provide the [respondent] with information as well as copies
of records.
3. PSERC advises that since the Commissioner's May 15, 1997 letter to me, it
has received another 218 pages of correspondence in four (separate) letters
from [the respondent]: "The [respondent] is unable to accept the forthright
responses that have been provided to [him/her], despite the considerable
efforts of staff to decipher what specific records actually exist." Based on
my own review of this recent correspondence and of [the respondent]'s
submissions to me, I find that [the respondent]'s requests are "repetitious" in
the sense that the same information has been requested again and again.
4. I have reviewed a submission from [the respondent] in connection with this section 43 application, approximately 50 pages of which were sumitted in camera. Whatever the merits of an argument that additional records must exist or that statutory exceptions should not be used to withhold information, the reality is that [the respondent]'s multiple problems cannot be solved on the basis of repetitive requests for access to information under the Act. I find also that the requests are "systematic" in the sense that they focus methodically, indeed obsessively, on certain labour relations issues between the [respondent] and PSERC.
5. PSERC submits that the "[respondent] is seeking to redress a perceived
injustice, not [to correct] records. For the most part, communication with
[the respondent] is beyond the scope of the Act." Based on my review of the
correspondence and submissions of PSERC and [the respondent], I concur in this
judgment. In my view, [the respondent] is seeking redress under the Act for a
labour relations issue (which began on November 21, 1991) that should be
settled elsewhere (if at all possible) in accordance with existing procedures
for unionized government staff. It is clear to me that PSERC cannot address
[his/her] various grievances under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
6. I also agree that the considerable time and effort needed to identify
requests for access which might be contained within hundreds of pages of
correspondence is not reasonable, especially when such additional access
requests appear to duplicate those previously made. I accept that even though
PSERC is a significant public body, it is relatively small and has only one
staff person to deal half-time with all access and privacy matters. I find
that the time and effort which would be required to analyze and respond to [the
respondent]'s voluminous, repetitious and systematic requests would, in all the
circumstances, unreasonably interfere with PSERC's operations.
Therefore, I authorize the Public Service Employee Relations Commission to
disregard requests from [the respondent] for records dealing with [his/her]
labour relations issues since 1991.
August 18, 1997
David H. Flaherty
Commissioner