In the Case of an Application by the Ministry of Human Resources for
Authorization to Disregard Requests from [the respondent] under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (the Act)
I have had the opportunity of reviewing the application of the Ministry
of Human Resources 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
Ministry of Human Resources.
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 requests must be done 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 detailed review of the submissions of the Ministry of Human
Resources and the response of the respondent, 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 Ministry:
1. The Ministry states that [the respondent] is its [client]. Since 1994 the
Ministry, and its predecessor, the Ministry of Social Services, has received a
total of 23 requests from [the respondent]: "The number can be said to be
higher because the Public Body often treats as single requests faxed from [the
respondent] that really contain more than one distinct request." (Submission
of the Ministry, paragraph 3.02) This number of requests from one individual
is "high" from one individual. (Submission of the Ministry, paragraph 3.07)
Most of these requests ask for personal information about [the respondent] in
all parts of the Ministry. (Submission of the Ministry, paragraphs 3.03, 3.04)
The Ministry describes [the respondent]'s methods of communicating with it
about [his/her] requests is to apply a "pattern of bombardment by
correspondence to almost every request [he/she] makes. In short, [the
respondent] has an enormous capacity for creating paper and flooding the Public
Body with it." (Submission of the Ministry, paragraph 3.05)
2. The Ministry submitted the reasons for decision [in a court matter]
involving [the respondent], which reviews some of the history and nature of
[his/her] relationship with the Ministry (and its predecessor, the Ministry of
Social Services). In particular, the [court] commented on [the respondent]'s
tendency and capacity, by piling proceeding upon proceeding, to create
confusion, as well as waste of time and resources, all of which must be met
from the hard pressed public purse. (Submission of the Ministry, paragraph
2.02)
3. The Information and Privacy Office of the Ministry estimates on the basis of
"good records" that it has spent at least 123 hours responding to only the last
eight requests of [the respondent]. (Submission of the Ministry, paragraph
3.08) The coordinator who has handled these specific requests estimates that
"due to the volume and confusing nature of the requests and associated
correspondence, it takes him approximately 3 times as long to process a request
from [the respondent] as it does to process requests from other applicants."
(Submission of the Ministry, paragraph 3.13) Other staff outside this Office
also "spend a considerable amount of time" dealing with these requests.
(Submission of the Ministry, paragraph 3.09) In terms of measuring and
evaluating the significance of this time commitment, the Ministry relies on my
discussion in Order 110-1996, June 5, 1996, p. 5. (Submission of the Ministry,
pp. 3, 12)
I agree with the submission of the Ministry that [the respondent] has made,
and continues to make, "unreasonable" demands on staff of the Ministry to
process [his/her] repetitious and systematic access requests. (Submission of
the Ministry, paragraph 3.13)
4. Based on my decision in Order No. 110-1996, I also agree with the submission
of the Ministry that "[The respondent] is not using the Act for the purpose for
which it was intended, and is not using the Act in good faith. [The respondent]
is using the Act as a weapon against the Public Body because [he/she] is
unhappy with the Public Body's decisions about [his/her] entitlement to income
assistance benefits. The demands placed on the Public Body by [the respondent]
are excessive. The Public Body's efforts to help [the respondent] have been
excessive in light of its responsibilities to other clients and the taxpayers."
(Submission of the Ministry, paragraphs 3.14, 3.17) (See also Order No. 137-1996, December 17, 1996, p. 10.)
5. I also agree with the Ministry that it is unfair for it to devote so much
time and effort to responding to a single applicant under the Act. This
unreasonably interferes with the operations of the Ministry and is unfair to
other applicants and the taxpayers. I further agree that "to require the
Public Body to continue to incur the costs of responding to [the respondent]'s
requests would offend public policy, particularly in these times of fiscal
restraint, and would bring the Act into disrepute." (Submission to the
Ministry,
paragraph 3.17)
Therefore, I authorize the Ministry to disregard all requests from [the
respondent], in particular the following:
October 16, 1997
David H. Flaherty
Commissioner