I have had the opportunity of reviewing the application of the Vancouver
School Board under section 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (the Act) for authorization to disregard section 5 requests
made by [the respondent].
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
Vancouver School Board.
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 must be given sparingly and only in obviously meritorious cases.
Granting section 43 requests should be the exception to the rule and not a
routine option for public bodies to avoid their obligations under the
legislation.
Based on a review of the submissions of the Vancouver School Board, its
documentation of each access request made by [the respondent], and [the
respondent]'s extensive response to the Vancouver School Board's submissions,
the following factors have led me to decide that [the respondent]'s access
requests are repetitious, systematic, and unreasonably interfere with the
operations of the School Board:
1. The Vancouver School Board spent well over 100 hours responding to
[the respondent]'s 21 requests in 1995, plus hours spent on mediation, and over
90 hours of staff time in participating in Order No. 110-1996, June 5-1996.
2. [The respondent]'s access requests comprised over 60 percent (21 of 34) of
the formal requests to the Vancouver School Board in 1995 and 75 percent (9 of
12) of the requests received so far in 1996. The Vancouver School Board has
already responded to 6 of the latter. Overall, [the respondent] has made 65
percent (30 out of 46) of the access requests to the Vancouver School Board in
1995-96. [The respondent] submitted another request on July 24, 1996.
3. My conclusion based on the evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board
and [the respondent] is that [the respondent] is not using the Act for the
purposes for which it was intended and that [the respondent] is not, indeed,
acting in good faith. (See Order No. 110-1996, June 5-1996, pp. 5-6)
4. My conclusion based on the evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board
and [the respondent] is that [the respondent] is using the Act as a weapon
against the Vancouver School Board after an episode in the workplace that has
left [the respondent] unhappy and preparing to arbitrate a claim of unjust
dismissal.
5. The evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board is that the systematic
and repetitious nature of [the respondent]'s requests to the Vancouver School
Board and of [the respondent]'s appeals at its responses is unreasonably
interfering with the operations of the Vancouver School Board.
6. My conclusion based on the evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board
is that [the respondent] is habitually, persistently, and in bad faith making
excessive and irrational requests and demands on the Vancouver School Board.
For purposes of this conclusion, I have adopted the tests of reasonableness and
abuse of process set out by Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Tom
Wright, in Order M-618, October 18-1995, involving the London Police Services
Board.
7. The evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board that responding to [the
respondent]'s requests has dramatically limited the time that the Vancouver
School Board's staff can devote to requests from other applicants under the
Act.
8. My conclusion based on the evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board
and [the respondent] is that [the respondent] is not using the Act for the
purpose for which it was intended and that any further continuation of these
actions could place the Act in disrepute. The Act must not become a weapon for
disgruntled individuals to use against a public body for reasons that have
nothing to do with the Act.
9. The evidence submitted by the Vancouver School Board is that it has
exercised considerable restraint and has made every effort to assist [the
respondent] and to respond without delay to [the respondent] openly,
accurately, and completely.
10. Finally, I reject the submission of [the respondent] that my Office has
treated [the respondent] unfairly. On the basis of the materials submitted by
[the respondent], I have concluded that my staff has acted appropriately and
fairly in its administration of the application.
Therefore, I authorize the Vancouver School Board to disregard the
following:
1. All outstanding requests for records by [the respondent].
2. All future requests for records which relate to the Carnegie Community
Centre and the Carnegie Adult Learning Centre.
3. All requests of any kind by [the respondent] for a period of one
year.
August 30, 1996
David H. Flaherty
Commissioner