Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 150 2. Hopeless proceedings. 3. Escalating proceedings. 4. Bringing proceedings for improper purposes. 5. Initiating “busybody” lawsuits to enforce alleged rights of third parties. 6. Failure to honour court-ordered obligations. 7. Persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions. 8. Persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behavior. 9. Unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud and misconduct. 10. Scandalous or inflammatory language in pleadings or before the court. 11. Advancing “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument.” Any of these indicia are a basis to classify a legal action as vexatious.248 It is not improper to request information from the state for the purpose of seeking civil redress arising from the manner in which the state conducted proceedings against an applicant.249 When considering whether a request for review was made on grounds that are frivolous or vexatious, the Commissioner is determining whether there is a pattern or type of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access. Depending on the nature of the case, one factor alone or multiple factors in concert with each other can lead to a finding that a request is an abuse of the right of access.250 The following are the factors considered when determining if there is a pattern or type of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access: • Number of requests: is the number excessive. Where the volume of requests interferes with the operations of a public body it can be argued the requests are excessive. To interfere with operations, the volume of requests must obstruct or hinder the range of effectiveness of the government institution’s activities. • Nature and scope of the requests: are they excessively broad and varied in scope or unusually detailed. Are they identical to or similar to previous requests. • Purpose of the requests: are the requests intended to accomplish some objective other than to gain access. For example, are they made for “nuisance” value, or is the applicant’s aim to harass the government institution or to break or burden the system. 248 Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 (CanLII) at [93]. See also AB IPC Request to Disregard F2019-RTD01 at p. 13. 249 AB IPC Request to Disregard F2019-RTD-01 at p. 13. 250 SK OIPC Review Report F-2010-002 at [70].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==