Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 132 IPC Findings In Disregard Decision 181-2021, 182-2021, the Commissioner considered an application from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to disregard two access to information requests from an applicant. SGI asserted that the two access to information requests should be disregarded on the grounds that the requests amounted to an abuse of the right of access pursuant to subsections 45.1(2)(b) and (c) of FOIP. Specifically, SGI asserted the access to information requests were vexatious and not submitted in good faith. The Commissioner considered subsection 45.12(2)(c) of FOIP first at the request of SGI. While considering the application, the Commissioner noted that it was not the first disregard application from SGI involving the applicant and that the Commissioner had previously issued three disregard decisions and one Review Report. In each of the disregard cases, the Commissioner found the applicant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the right of access. The current disregard application would be the fourth from SGI involving the applicant. Considering this and the additional arguments submitted by SGI in this case, the Commissioner found that SGI had established reasonable grounds for finding the applicant’s two requests were vexatious and not made in good faith within the meaning of subsection 45.1(2)(c) of FOIP. As a result of this finding, the Commissioner did not need to consider subsection 45.1(2)(b) of FOIP. However, the Commissioner noted that in the past three disregard decisions involving the applicant and SGI, the Commissioner had found that subsection 45.1(2)(b) of FOIP applied because of the applicant’s conduct and as the circumstances in the present case were similar, it would likely result in a similar finding. Most notable in this disregard decision, is the Commissioner went further with the decision for the first time. The Commissioner was concerned with the cost and inefficiency of the multiple applications to disregard being submitted by SGI involving the applicant. Furthermore, that it was not in the public interest to unnecessarily add to SGI’s costs of complying with FOIP. In addition, other members of the public had an equal right to share in the public resources allocated to responding to access to information requests. When an individual overburdens the system in the way this applicant was, it has a negative impact on others who want to legitimately exercise their access to information rights. After considering how other jurisdictions handle similar situations, the Commissioner’s decision imposed other conditions not previously put forward. The Commissioner granted SGI’s application to disregard the two access to information requests. In addition, the Commissioner authorized SGI to disregard all future access to information requests made by or on behalf of the applicant that pertain to the motor vehicle accident in 2019. Upon issuance of the disregard decision, the Commissioner discontinued all reviews involving SGI and the applicant that were open pertaining to the motor vehicle accident pursuant to subsections 50(2)(a) and (a.7) of FOIP (three files at the time) and any future requests for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==