Requests to Disregard

Decision	Release Date	Body
P2025-RTD-01	May 26, 2025	King's University King’s University (the “Organization”) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard 5 access requests and all future requests made by an applicant. The Organization’s application was dismissed and the Organization is required to respond to the Applicant in accordance with PIPA.
F2025-RTD-02	May 6, 2025	University of Alberta The University of Alberta (the Public Body) requested authorization to disregard 43 access requests as well as all future requests of a similar nature made by an Applicant. The Public Body was granted authorization under section 55(1)(a) of the FOIP Act to disregard the 43 access requests. The Public Body was also authorized to disregard the Applicant’s future requests for three months from the date of this decision.
F2025-RTD-01	March 17, 2025	St. Albert Public School District No. 5565 St. Albert Public School District No. 5565 (the “Public Body”) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“the FOIP Act”) to disregard five access requests from an Applicant. The Public Body was granted authorization to disregard the Applicant’s access requests.
F2024-RTD-06	August 27, 2024	City of Medicine Hat The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard two specified access request made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the two access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2024-RTD-05	August 27, 2024	City of Medicine Hat The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard 5 specific access requests made by an applicant. Two separate submissions were made by the Public Body, however, given the similarity of subject matter and reasoning, the Commissioner dealt with both the Public Body’s applications in one decision. The applications were dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the 5 access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2024-RTD-04	August 20, 2024	Carewest Carewest (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard 3 specified access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the 3 access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2024-RTD-03	May 16, 2024	City of Medicine Hat The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard specified access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the specified access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2024-RTD-02	May 3, 2024	Town of Didsbury The Town of Didsbury (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard one access request as well as any future access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2024-RTD-01	February 7, 2024	University of Calgary The University of Calgary (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard three access requests. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2023-RTD-03	December 20, 2023	Town of Crossfield The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard an access request under section 55(1)(b) of the FOIP Act as well as authorization to disregard any access requests that the applicant might make in the future. The application was dismissed and the Town of Crossfield was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.
F2023-RTD-02	October 27, 2023	Village of Beiseker The Village of Beiseker requested authorization to disregard two access requests. It was authorized to disregard one access request under section 55(1)(a) of the FOIP Act and was required to respond to the other access request in accordance with the FOIP Act. The Village of Beiseker was not authorized to disregard future requests that might be made by the Applicant.
F2023-RTD-01	September 29, 2023	Rocky View County Rocky View County (the “Public Body”) requested authorization under section 55(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOIP Act” or “Act”) to disregard an access request made by an applicant (the “Applicant”) as frivolous. For the reasons outlined in this decision, the Public Body’s application for authorization under section 55(1)(b) to disregard the Applicant’s access request is dismissed.
P2023-RTD-01	January 11, 2023	Caron & Partners LLP Caron & Partners LLP requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an access request made by an applicant. Caron & Partners LLP was not authorized to disregard the applicant’s access request.
F2022-RTD-07	October 6, 2022	Red Deer Public Schools Red Deer Public Schools requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard access requests made by an applicant. Red Deer Public Schools was not authorized to disregard the applicant’s access requests.
F2022-RTD-06	July 28, 2022	Children's Services Children’s Services requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. Children's Services was authorized to disregard the applicant’s access request. Children's Servcies was also authorized to disregard any similar access requests from the applicant that it may receive in the future.
F2022-RTD-04	July 27, 2022	Village of Carbon The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant and from any individuals associated with the group Ratepayers of Carbon was also dismissed.
F2022-RTD-05	July 27, 2022	Village of Carbon The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant was also dismissed.
H2022-RTD-01	May 27, 2022	Surgical Centres Inc./Dr. Nanji Surgical Centres Inc./Dr. Nanji (custodian) requested authorization to disregard any outstanding access requests and correction requests, as well as any future access or correction requests, made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted the custodian authorization to disregard any outstanding access requests for records containing the applicant’s health information. The custodian was authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant for the same records it has already provided her. However, the Commissioner found that the applicant did not make a request for correction. If the applicant makes a correction request in the future that includes sufficient detail about the alleged error or omission, the custodian should respond in accordance with HIA.
P2022-RTD-02	April 12, 2022	Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP authorization to disregard the applicant's access request.
P2022-RTD-01	April 12, 2022	Caron & Partners LLP Caron & Partners LLP requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted Caron & Partners LLP authorization to disregard the applicant's access request.
F2022-RTD-03	April 7, 2022	Town of Crossfield The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner dismissed the Town of Crossfield's request for authorization to disregard the access request. The Town of Crossfield must respond to the applicant in accordance with FOIP.
F2022-RTD-02	April 7, 2022	Town of Crossfield The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted the Town of Crossfield authorization to disregard the access requests. The Town of Crossfield was also authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant relating to the same information.
F2022-RTD-01	April 5, 2022	Edmonton School Division Edmonton School Division (ESD) requested authorization to disregard six access requests, as well as any future access requests regarding the same issue, made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted ESD authorization to disregard the six access requests. ESD was also authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant relating to the same issue.
P2021-RTD-01	October 25, 2021	Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an access request, as well as any future requests, made by an individual. The Commissioner found the access request to be repetitious, vexatious and an abuse of the applicant's right to make an access request. APEGA was authorized to disregard the access request as well as authorization to disregard future access requests of a similar nature from the applicant.
F2021-RTD-05	October 21, 2021	Calgary Police Service Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an individual, as well as any future access requests made by the applicant. The Commissioner found the access request to be systematic in nature, repetitious, vexatious and an abuse of the applicant's right to make a request. The Commissioner did not grant CPS' request to disregard future access requests.
F2021-RTD-04	October 21, 2021	Municipality of Crowsnest Pass The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard access requests made by an individual, as well as future access requests made by the individual. The Commissioner required the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to respond to certain access requests. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass' request for authorization to disregard future requests made by the applicant was denied.
F2021-RTD-03	August 26, 2021	Calgary Police Service The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard an access request from an individual. The Commissioner granted CPS' request to disregard the applicant's access request. The applicant's request was found to be repetitious as the records at issue had previously been provided to the applicant.
F2021-RTD-02	March 19, 2021	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard 13 access requests from an individual, as well as authorization to disregard any future requests until court proceedings related to the applicant's death threat against JSG employees has concluded. JSG also requested limits on future access requests from the applicant, after the court proceedings conclude. The Commissioner granted JSG's request to disregard the applicant's access requests and place limits on future access requests from the applicant.
F2021-RTD-01	March 10, 2021	Alberta Health Services AHS requested authorization to disregard an access request, even though it had already provided a response to the request. The Commissioner declined to make a decision on AHS' request to disregard the applicant's access request, and confirmed the OIPC's review of AHS' access request response will continue.
H2020-RTD-02	December 12, 2020	Alberta Health Services Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization under section 87(1) of HIA to disregard an access request from an individual. AHS also requested authorization to disregard future similar requests for a period of three years, followed by one request per calendar year for a period of five years. The Commissioner found the access request was repetitious or systematic and amounted to an abuse of the right to make an access request. AHS was authorized to disregard the access request. It was also authorized to disregard future access requests for the same information that has already been processed and to limit the applicant to one access request per year from those databases for a period of five years.
H2020-RTD-01	November 27, 2020	Alberta Health Services Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization under section 87(1) of HIA to disregard 62 correction or amendment requests from an individual. AHS also requested authorization to disregard any future requests from the applicant regarding corrections or amendment requests for a period of two years effective from the date of this decision, and upon completion of that two year period that the applicant be limited to submitting three requests for correction or amendment for a period of two years. The Commissioner decided to authorize AHS to disregard the applicant's 62 correction or amendment requests. AHS was also authorized to limit the applicant to five correction or amendment requests per year under HIA, with a minimum of 60 calendar days between those requests for a period of two years.
F2020-RTD-06	November 23, 2020	Town of Devon The Town of Devon requested authorization to disregard an access request. The Commissioner found that the Town of Devon had not met its burden to establish that the applicant's access request was frivolous or vexatious. The Town of Devon was required to respond to the applicant's access request.
F2020-RTD-05	September 23, 2020	Alberta Health Services Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard 53 of 73 access requests received from an applicant under FOIP (section 55). The Commissioner authorized AHS to disregard all 53 access requests, as the requests were found to be repetitious or systematic in nature and unreasonably interfere with the operations of AHS (section 55(1)(a)). The Commissioner also authorized AHS to limit the applicant to five requests per year with a minimum of 60 calendar days between submissions, for a period of two years.
F2020-RTD-04	July 24, 2020	Livingstone Range School Division Livingstone Range School Division No. 68 (LRSD) requested authorization to disregard 10 access requests submitted by an applicant. LRSD also requested authorization to disregard all future access that may be submitted by the applicant. The Commissioner determined that LRSD met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were repetitious or systematic in nature, and that they amounted to an abuse of the right to make those requests. LRSD was authorized to disregard the applicant's 10 access requests. LRSD was also authorized to disregard future access requests, with certain limitations.
F2020-RTD-03	July 23, 2020	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard an access request submitted by an applicant. The Commissioner determined that JSG met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access request was systematic in nature, unreasonably interfered with the operations of JSG in part, amounted to abuse of the right to make a request and was vexatious. JSG was authorized to disregard the applicant's access request.
F2020-RTD-02	July 23, 2020	Calgary Police Service The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard five access requests submitted by an applicant. CPS also requested authorization to disregard any future requests of a similar nature. The Commissioner determined that CPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were vexatious, and was authorized to disregard all five access requests. The Commissioner also authorized CPS to disregard future access requests for the same information.
P2020-RTD-01	July 15, 2020	BP Canada Energy Group ULC BP Canada Energy Group ULC (BP) requested authorization to disregard an access request from an individual. The Commissioner determined that BP provided insufficient evidence and argument to supports it application to disregard the applicant's access request.
F2020-RTD-01	May 8, 2020	Edmonton Police Service The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) requested authorization to disregard two access requests submitted by an applicant. EPS also requested authorization to disregard any subsequent related requests and to have a period of two years in which it does not have to respond to any access requests from the applicant. The Commissioner determined that EPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were repetitious or systematic in nature and amounted to an abuse of the right to make the request. The Commissioner also authorized EPS to disregard future access requests of a similar type. However, the Commissioner did not authorize EPS to disregard all access requests from the applicant for the requested two years.
F2019-RTD-04	September 18, 2019	University of Lethbridge The University of Lethbridge requested authorization to disregard an access request submitted by an applicant. The University of Lethbridge also requested authorization to disregard any subsequent related requests for a period of three years. The Commissioner determined that the University of Lethbridge met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access request was repetitious or systematic in nature and amounted to an abuse of the right to make the request. In the absence of any further submissions by the University of Lethbridge on the request for future authorizations to disregard, the Commissioner did not consider the University of Lethbridge's request at this time.
F2019-RTD-03	July 24, 2019	Calgary Police Service Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard three access requests submitted by an applicant. The Commissioner decided that CPS could disregard the three access requests. Although CPS did not specifically ask for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant, the Commissioner also decided that CPS could disregard future access requests from the applicant that relate to the issues for which the applicant has been making access requests to CPS since 2011.
F2019-RTD-02 & H2019-RTD-01	June 7, 2019	Alberta Health Services Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard part of one access request and two other access requests submitted by an applicant. AHS also requested authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant, and specified what types of access requests it was asking to disregard. The Commissioner determined that the applicant's access requests were systematic in nature and amount to an abuse of the right to make those access requests, and that the requests were vexatious. The Commissioner also accepted AHS' request to disregard future access requests.
F2019-RTD-01	February 1, 2019	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard 20 access requests submitted by an applicant. There were 12 additional access requests submitted by the applicant, subsequent to the initial 20 access requests, for which JSG also requested authorization to disregard. The Commissioner determined that JSG failed to prove that the requests were repetitious or systematic in nature, or that the requests were frivolous or vexatious. The Commissioner dismissed JSG's request for authorization to disregard the access requests.
F2018-RTD-10	October 31, 2018	Energy Energy requested authorization to disregard an applicant's access request as well as authorization to disregard any future requests submitted by the applicant for the same or similar information. The Commissioner authorized Energy to disregard the applicant’s access requests. Energy was also granted authorization to disregard access requests for the same or similar information from the applicant for a period of six months from the date of this decision.
F2018-RTD-09	September 7, 2018	MacEwan University MacEwan University requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner did not authorize MacEwan University to disregard the access request. The decision was made on the basis that, despite the abundance of background information and documentation, MacEwan University did not provide an argument on which the Commissioner could make a decision under section 55(1) of FOIP.
F2018-RTD-06	July 31, 2018	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received two access requests under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, fewer than two weeks later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.
F2018-RTD-07	July 31, 2018	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received two access requests under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, 10 days later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.
F2018-RTD-08	July 31, 2018	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received the access request under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, four days later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.
F2018-RTD-05	July 27, 2018	Alberta Energy Regulator The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by a husband and wife. The Commissioner agreed with AER that the requests were frivolous or vexatious and authorized the AER to disregard the request. However, if the applicants believe the AER's letter to clarify the scope does not capture the scope of their access request, they may in certain and unequivocal terms clarify the scope of the information to which they are requesting access but must not use abusive or vitriolic language.
F2018-RTD-04	July 4, 2018	Alberta Health Services Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner ultimately found that AHS is required to respond to the access request in part. AHS is not required to respond to the applicant's request where it would duplicate records that have already been provided to the applicant. AHS also requested for it to disregard future requests for a period of 12 months of this decision and, after the 12-month period, only allow one request per year from the applicant for a period of five years. The Commissioner declined to make a decision regarding future access requests from the applicant.
P2018-RTD-01	July 4, 2018	Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requested authorization to disregard two personal information requests made by an applicant under PIPA. Among several other findings, the Commissioner determined from information provided by both APEGA and the applicant that the applicant was using his matters before the OIPC as a bargaining tool in actions against APEGA. The Commissioner agreed with APEGA that the applicant's requests were vexatious and authorized APEGA to disregard the applicant's access requests.
F2018-RTD-03	April 13, 2018	City of Calgary The City of Calgary requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an individual. The Commissioner found that the access requests were systematic in nature, but did not amount to an abuse of the right to make the requests and were not considered vexatious under section 55 of FOIP. The Commissioner decided the City of Calgary was required to respond to the applicant's access request.
F2018-RTD-02	April 6, 2018	City of Edmonton The City of Edmonton requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an individual. The Commissioner did not grant the City of Edmonton authorization to disregard the request at issue. Although the Commissioner decided not to authorize the City of Edmonton's request to disregard the request at issue, the decision does not prevent the City of Edmonton from making future requests for authorization to disregard, if it believes that the applicant's pattern of requests meets the threshold at that time.
F2018-RTD-01	February 12, 2018	Justice and Solicitor General Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) submitted three requests for authorization to disregard a total of 13 access requests received from an individual. The Commissioner authorized JSG to disregard parts of or in their entirety four of the 13 access requests. The Commissioner did not authorize JSG to disregard the remaining access requests.
F2017-RTD-02	November 29, 2017	Calgary Police Service The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard an applicant's three access requests. The Commissioner found that the requests were repetitive and systematic nature and amounted to an abuse of the applicant's right to make those requests. The requests were also found to be vexatious. However, there was no decision made regarding the applicant's future access requests to CPS. CPS may choose to make another request under section 55 if the applicant makes another access request in the future.
F2017-RTD-01	November 29, 2017	Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) requested authorization to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner found that RMWB did not meet its burden of proving that the applicant's access request was vexatious.
P2016-RTD-01	December 12, 2016	Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP The Commissioner determined that the organization could disregard the respondent's general access request for personal information. However, the organization must respond to the respondent's narrowed access request for her credit and financial information.
F2015-RTD-02	September 23, 2015	University of Alberta The University of Alberta requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The University of Alberta was authorized to disregard the applicant's access request.
F2015-RTD-01	August 11, 2015	Town of Ponoka The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard 14 access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard 10 of 14 access requests, and any further requests about the 38th Street local improvement.
F2014-RTD-01	August 27, 2014	Service Alberta Service Alberta requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner denied Service Alberta's request.
P2011-RTD-01	April 1, 2011	Alberta Teachers' Association The Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an any future access requests made by two applicants. The Commissioner denied ATA's request.
P2010-RTD-01	March 8, 2010	Alberta Motor Association The Alberta Motor Association (AMA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard five access requests and future requests until pending litigation between the applicants and AMA had been completed. The Commissioner authorized AMA to disregard five access requests from an applicant and any future requests relating to a fire and flood insurance claims until litigation against AMA had taken its course.
F2007-RTD-01	March 13, 2007	Grant MacEwan College Grant MacEwan College requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an access request from an applicant and future requests made by the applicant. The Commissioner authorized Grant MacEwan College to disregard the access request and any and all future requests made by an applicant for a period of three years.
P2005-RTD-01	November 29, 2005	Manulife Manulife requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized Manulife to disregard the applicant's request for personal information on the basis that it was vexatious.
F2005-RTD-01	November 4, 2005	Edmonton Police Service The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner denied EPS' request.
F2003-RTD-01	February 5, 2003	Southern Alberta Institute of Technology The Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner denied SAIT's request.
F2002-RTD-03	August 7, 2002	Town of Ponoka The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard the applicant's request.
F2002-RTD-02	April 10, 2002	Town of Ponoka The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard the applicant's request.
F2002-RTD-01	March 21, 2002	Municipal Affairs Municipal Affairs requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized Municipal Affairs to disregard the applicant's request.

P2025-RTD-01

May 26, 2025

King's University

King’s University (the “Organization”) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard 5 access requests and all future requests made by an applicant. The Organization’s application was dismissed and the Organization is required to respond to the Applicant in accordance with PIPA.

F2025-RTD-02

May 6, 2025

University of Alberta

The University of Alberta (the Public Body) requested authorization to disregard 43 access requests as well as all future requests of a similar nature made by an Applicant. The Public Body was granted authorization under section 55(1)(a) of the FOIP Act to disregard the 43 access requests. The Public Body was also authorized to disregard the Applicant’s future requests for three months from the date of this decision.

F2025-RTD-01

March 17, 2025

St. Albert Public School District No. 5565

St. Albert Public School District No. 5565 (the “Public Body”) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“the FOIP Act”) to disregard five access requests from an Applicant. The Public Body was granted authorization to disregard the Applicant’s access requests.

F2024-RTD-06

August 27, 2024

City of Medicine Hat

The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard two specified access request made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the two access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2024-RTD-05

August 27, 2024

City of Medicine Hat

The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard 5 specific access requests made by an applicant. Two separate submissions were made by the Public Body, however, given the similarity of subject matter and reasoning, the Commissioner dealt with both the Public Body’s applications in one decision. The applications were dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the 5 access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2024-RTD-04

August 20, 2024

Carewest

Carewest (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard 3 specified access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the 3 access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2024-RTD-03

May 16, 2024

City of Medicine Hat

The City of Medicine Hat (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard specified access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the specified access requests in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2024-RTD-02

May 3, 2024

Town of Didsbury

The Town of Didsbury (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard one access request as well as any future access requests made by an applicant. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2024-RTD-01

February 7, 2024

University of Calgary

The University of Calgary (the Public Body) requested authorization under section 55(1) of the FOIP Act to disregard three access requests. The application was dismissed and the Public Body was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2023-RTD-03

December 20, 2023

Town of Crossfield

The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard an access request under section 55(1)(b) of the FOIP Act as well as authorization to disregard any access requests that the applicant might make in the future. The application was dismissed and the Town of Crossfield was required to respond to the applicant in accordance with the FOIP Act.

F2023-RTD-02

October 27, 2023

Village of Beiseker

The Village of Beiseker requested authorization to disregard two access requests. It was authorized to disregard one access request under section 55(1)(a) of the FOIP Act and was required to respond to the other access request in accordance with the FOIP Act. The Village of Beiseker was not authorized to disregard future requests that might be made by the Applicant.

F2023-RTD-01

September 29, 2023

Rocky View County

Rocky View County (the “Public Body”) requested authorization under section 55(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOIP Act” or “Act”) to disregard an access request made by an applicant (the “Applicant”) as frivolous. For the reasons outlined in this decision, the Public Body’s application for authorization under section 55(1)(b) to disregard the Applicant’s access request is dismissed.

P2023-RTD-01

January 11, 2023

Caron & Partners LLP

Caron & Partners LLP requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an access request made by an applicant. Caron & Partners LLP was not authorized to disregard the applicant’s access request.

F2022-RTD-07

October 6, 2022

Red Deer Public Schools

Red Deer Public Schools requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard access requests made by an applicant. Red Deer Public Schools was not authorized to disregard the applicant’s access requests.

F2022-RTD-06

July 28, 2022

Children's Services

Children’s Services requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. Children's Services was authorized to disregard the applicant’s access request. Children's Servcies was also authorized to disregard any similar access requests from the applicant that it may receive in the future.

F2022-RTD-04

July 27, 2022

Village of Carbon

The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant and from any individuals associated with the group Ratepayers of Carbon was also dismissed.

F2022-RTD-05

July 27, 2022

Village of Carbon

The Village of Carbon requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Village of Carbon’s application for authorization to disregard the applicant’s access request was dismissed, and it is required to respond to the applicant. The Village of Carbon’s request for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant was also dismissed.

H2022-RTD-01

May 27, 2022

Surgical Centres Inc./Dr. Nanji

Surgical Centres Inc./Dr. Nanji (custodian) requested authorization to disregard any outstanding access requests and correction requests, as well as any future access or correction requests, made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted the custodian authorization to disregard any outstanding access requests for records containing the applicant’s health information. The custodian was authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant for the same records it has already provided her. However, the Commissioner found that the applicant did not make a request for correction. If the applicant makes a correction request in the future that includes sufficient detail about the alleged error or omission, the custodian should respond in accordance with HIA.

P2022-RTD-02

April 12, 2022

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP authorization to disregard the applicant's access request.

P2022-RTD-01

April 12, 2022

Caron & Partners LLP

Caron & Partners LLP requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted Caron & Partners LLP authorization to disregard the applicant's access request.

F2022-RTD-03

April 7, 2022

Town of Crossfield

The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner dismissed the Town of Crossfield's request for authorization to disregard the access request. The Town of Crossfield must respond to the applicant in accordance with FOIP.

F2022-RTD-02

April 7, 2022

Town of Crossfield

The Town of Crossfield requested authorization to disregard access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted the Town of Crossfield authorization to disregard the access requests. The Town of Crossfield was also authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant relating to the same information.

F2022-RTD-01

April 5, 2022

Edmonton School Division

Edmonton School Division (ESD) requested authorization to disregard six access requests, as well as any future access requests regarding the same issue, made by an applicant. The Commissioner granted ESD authorization to disregard the six access requests. ESD was also authorized to disregard any future access requests from the applicant relating to the same issue.

P2021-RTD-01

October 25, 2021

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an access request, as well as any future requests, made by an individual. The Commissioner found the access request to be repetitious, vexatious and an abuse of the applicant's right to make an access request. APEGA was authorized to disregard the access request as well as authorization to disregard future access requests of a similar nature from the applicant.

F2021-RTD-05

October 21, 2021

Calgary Police Service

Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard an access request made by an individual, as well as any future access requests made by the applicant. The Commissioner found the access request to be systematic in nature, repetitious, vexatious and an abuse of the applicant's right to make a request. The Commissioner did not grant CPS' request to disregard future access requests.

F2021-RTD-04

October 21, 2021

Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass requested authorization under section 55(1) of FOIP to disregard access requests made by an individual, as well as future access requests made by the individual. The Commissioner required the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass to respond to certain access requests. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass' request for authorization to disregard future requests made by the applicant was denied.

F2021-RTD-03

August 26, 2021

Calgary Police Service

The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard an access request from an individual. The Commissioner granted CPS' request to disregard the applicant's access request. The applicant's request was found to be repetitious as the records at issue had previously been provided to the applicant.

F2021-RTD-02

March 19, 2021

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard 13 access requests from an individual, as well as authorization to disregard any future requests until court proceedings related to the applicant's death threat against JSG employees has concluded. JSG also requested limits on future access requests from the applicant, after the court proceedings conclude. The Commissioner granted JSG's request to disregard the applicant's access requests and place limits on future access requests from the applicant.

F2021-RTD-01

March 10, 2021

Alberta Health Services

AHS requested authorization to disregard an access request, even though it had already provided a response to the request. The Commissioner declined to make a decision on AHS' request to disregard the applicant's access request, and confirmed the OIPC's review of AHS' access request response will continue.

H2020-RTD-02

December 12, 2020

Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization under section 87(1) of HIA to disregard an access request from an individual. AHS also requested authorization to disregard future similar requests for a period of three years, followed by one request per calendar year for a period of five years. The Commissioner found the access request was repetitious or systematic and amounted to an abuse of the right to make an access request. AHS was authorized to disregard the access request. It was also authorized to disregard future access requests for the same information that has already been processed and to limit the applicant to one access request per year from those databases for a period of five years.

H2020-RTD-01

November 27, 2020

Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization under section 87(1) of HIA to disregard 62 correction or amendment requests from an individual. AHS also requested authorization to disregard any future requests from the applicant regarding corrections or amendment requests for a period of two years effective from the date of this decision, and upon completion of that two year period that the applicant be limited to submitting three requests for correction or amendment for a period of two years. The Commissioner decided to authorize AHS to disregard the applicant's 62 correction or amendment requests. AHS was also authorized to limit the applicant to five correction or amendment requests per year under HIA, with a minimum of 60 calendar days between those requests for a period of two years.

F2020-RTD-06

November 23, 2020

Town of Devon

The Town of Devon requested authorization to disregard an access request. The Commissioner found that the Town of Devon had not met its burden to establish that the applicant's access request was frivolous or vexatious. The Town of Devon was required to respond to the applicant's access request.

F2020-RTD-05

September 23, 2020

Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard 53 of 73 access requests received from an applicant under FOIP (section 55). The Commissioner authorized AHS to disregard all 53 access requests, as the requests were found to be repetitious or systematic in nature and unreasonably interfere with the operations of AHS (section 55(1)(a)). The Commissioner also authorized AHS to limit the applicant to five requests per year with a minimum of 60 calendar days between submissions, for a period of two years.

F2020-RTD-04

July 24, 2020

Livingstone Range School Division

Livingstone Range School Division No. 68 (LRSD) requested authorization to disregard 10 access requests submitted by an applicant. LRSD also requested authorization to disregard all future access that may be submitted by the applicant. The Commissioner determined that LRSD met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were repetitious or systematic in nature, and that they amounted to an abuse of the right to make those requests. LRSD was authorized to disregard the applicant's 10 access requests. LRSD was also authorized to disregard future access requests, with certain limitations.

F2020-RTD-03

July 23, 2020

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard an access request submitted by an applicant. The Commissioner determined that JSG met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access request was systematic in nature, unreasonably interfered with the operations of JSG in part, amounted to abuse of the right to make a request and was vexatious. JSG was authorized to disregard the applicant's access request.

F2020-RTD-02

July 23, 2020

Calgary Police Service

The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard five access requests submitted by an applicant. CPS also requested authorization to disregard any future requests of a similar nature. The Commissioner determined that CPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were vexatious, and was authorized to disregard all five access requests. The Commissioner also authorized CPS to disregard future access requests for the same information.

P2020-RTD-01

July 15, 2020

BP Canada Energy Group ULC

BP Canada Energy Group ULC (BP) requested authorization to disregard an access request from an individual. The Commissioner determined that BP provided insufficient evidence and argument to supports it application to disregard the applicant's access request.

F2020-RTD-01

May 8, 2020

Edmonton Police Service

The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) requested authorization to disregard two access requests submitted by an applicant. EPS also requested authorization to disregard any subsequent related requests and to have a period of two years in which it does not have to respond to any access requests from the applicant. The Commissioner determined that EPS met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access requests were repetitious or systematic in nature and amounted to an abuse of the right to make the request. The Commissioner also authorized EPS to disregard future access requests of a similar type. However, the Commissioner did not authorize EPS to disregard all access requests from the applicant for the requested two years.

F2019-RTD-04

September 18, 2019

University of Lethbridge

The University of Lethbridge requested authorization to disregard an access request submitted by an applicant. The University of Lethbridge also requested authorization to disregard any subsequent related requests for a period of three years. The Commissioner determined that the University of Lethbridge met its burden to prove that the applicant’s access request was repetitious or systematic in nature and amounted to an abuse of the right to make the request. In the absence of any further submissions by the University of Lethbridge on the request for future authorizations to disregard, the Commissioner did not consider the University of Lethbridge's request at this time.

F2019-RTD-03

July 24, 2019

Calgary Police Service

Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard three access requests submitted by an applicant. The Commissioner decided that CPS could disregard the three access requests. Although CPS did not specifically ask for authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant, the Commissioner also decided that CPS could disregard future access requests from the applicant that relate to the issues for which the applicant has been making access requests to CPS since 2011.

F2019-RTD-02 & H2019-RTD-01

June 7, 2019

Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard part of one access request and two other access requests submitted by an applicant. AHS also requested authorization to disregard future access requests from the applicant, and specified what types of access requests it was asking to disregard. The Commissioner determined that the applicant's access requests were systematic in nature and amount to an abuse of the right to make those access requests, and that the requests were vexatious. The Commissioner also accepted AHS' request to disregard future access requests.

F2019-RTD-01

February 1, 2019

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard 20 access requests submitted by an applicant. There were 12 additional access requests submitted by the applicant, subsequent to the initial 20 access requests, for which JSG also requested authorization to disregard. The Commissioner determined that JSG failed to prove that the requests were repetitious or systematic in nature, or that the requests were frivolous or vexatious. The Commissioner dismissed JSG's request for authorization to disregard the access requests.

F2018-RTD-10

October 31, 2018

Energy

Energy requested authorization to disregard an applicant's access request as well as authorization to disregard any future requests submitted by the applicant for the same or similar information. The Commissioner authorized Energy to disregard the applicant’s access requests. Energy was also granted authorization to disregard access requests for the same or similar information from the applicant for a period of six months from the date of this decision.

F2018-RTD-09

September 7, 2018

MacEwan University

MacEwan University requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner did not authorize MacEwan University to disregard the access request. The decision was made on the basis that, despite the abundance of background information and documentation, MacEwan University did not provide an argument on which the Commissioner could make a decision under section 55(1) of FOIP.

F2018-RTD-06

July 31, 2018

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received two access requests under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, fewer than two weeks later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.

F2018-RTD-07

July 31, 2018

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received two access requests under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, 10 days later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.

F2018-RTD-08

July 31, 2018

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner found that JSG received the access request under FOIP, applied to disregard the requests and then, four days later, destroyed the responsive records. As a result, the Commissioner was unable to make a decision on the request for authorization to disregard requests. A new file was opened to investigate JSG's destruction of records responsive to access requests.

F2018-RTD-05

July 27, 2018

Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by a husband and wife. The Commissioner agreed with AER that the requests were frivolous or vexatious and authorized the AER to disregard the request. However, if the applicants believe the AER's letter to clarify the scope does not capture the scope of their access request, they may in certain and unequivocal terms clarify the scope of the information to which they are requesting access but must not use abusive or vitriolic language.

F2018-RTD-04

July 4, 2018

Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services (AHS) requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an applicant. The Commissioner ultimately found that AHS is required to respond to the access request in part. AHS is not required to respond to the applicant's request where it would duplicate records that have already been provided to the applicant. AHS also requested for it to disregard future requests for a period of 12 months of this decision and, after the 12-month period, only allow one request per year from the applicant for a period of five years. The Commissioner declined to make a decision regarding future access requests from the applicant.

P2018-RTD-01

July 4, 2018

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) requested authorization to disregard two personal information requests made by an applicant under PIPA. Among several other findings, the Commissioner determined from information provided by both APEGA and the applicant that the applicant was using his matters before the OIPC as a bargaining tool in actions against APEGA. The Commissioner agreed with APEGA that the applicant's requests were vexatious and authorized APEGA to disregard the applicant's access requests.

F2018-RTD-03

April 13, 2018

City of Calgary

The City of Calgary requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an individual. The Commissioner found that the access requests were systematic in nature, but did not amount to an abuse of the right to make the requests and were not considered vexatious under section 55 of FOIP. The Commissioner decided the City of Calgary was required to respond to the applicant's access request.

F2018-RTD-02

April 6, 2018

City of Edmonton

The City of Edmonton requested authorization to disregard an access request made by an individual. The Commissioner did not grant the City of Edmonton authorization to disregard the request at issue. Although the Commissioner decided not to authorize the City of Edmonton's request to disregard the request at issue, the decision does not prevent the City of Edmonton from making future requests for authorization to disregard, if it believes that the applicant's pattern of requests meets the threshold at that time.

F2018-RTD-01

February 12, 2018

Justice and Solicitor General

Justice and Solicitor General (JSG) submitted three requests for authorization to disregard a total of 13 access requests received from an individual. The Commissioner authorized JSG to disregard parts of or in their entirety four of the 13 access requests. The Commissioner did not authorize JSG to disregard the remaining access requests.

F2017-RTD-02

November 29, 2017

Calgary Police Service

The Calgary Police Service (CPS) requested authorization to disregard an applicant's three access requests. The Commissioner found that the requests were repetitive and systematic nature and amounted to an abuse of the applicant's right to make those requests. The requests were also found to be vexatious. However, there was no decision made regarding the applicant's future access requests to CPS. CPS may choose to make another request under section 55 if the applicant makes another access request in the future.

F2017-RTD-01

November 29, 2017

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) requested authorization to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner found that RMWB did not meet its burden of proving that the applicant's access request was vexatious.

P2016-RTD-01

December 12, 2016

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

The Commissioner determined that the organization could disregard the respondent's general access request for personal information. However, the organization must respond to the respondent's narrowed access request for her credit and financial information.

F2015-RTD-02

September 23, 2015

University of Alberta

The University of Alberta requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The University of Alberta was authorized to disregard the applicant's access request.

F2015-RTD-01

August 11, 2015

Town of Ponoka

The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard 14 access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard 10 of 14 access requests, and any further requests about the 38th Street local improvement.

F2014-RTD-01

August 27, 2014

Service Alberta

Service Alberta requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner denied Service Alberta's request.

P2011-RTD-01

April 1, 2011

Alberta Teachers' Association

The Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an any future access requests made by two applicants. The Commissioner denied ATA's request.

P2010-RTD-01

March 8, 2010

Alberta Motor Association

The Alberta Motor Association (AMA) requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard five access requests and future requests until pending litigation between the applicants and AMA had been completed. The Commissioner authorized AMA to disregard five access requests from an applicant and any future requests relating to a fire and flood insurance claims until litigation against AMA had taken its course.

F2007-RTD-01

March 13, 2007

Grant MacEwan College

Grant MacEwan College requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an access request from an applicant and future requests made by the applicant. The Commissioner authorized Grant MacEwan College to disregard the access request and any and all future requests made by an applicant for a period of three years.

P2005-RTD-01

November 29, 2005

Manulife

Manulife requested authorization under section 37 of PIPA to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized Manulife to disregard the applicant's request for personal information on the basis that it was vexatious.

F2005-RTD-01

November 4, 2005

Edmonton Police Service

The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard two access requests made by an applicant. The Commissioner denied EPS' request.

F2003-RTD-01

February 5, 2003

Southern Alberta Institute of Technology

The Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner denied SAIT's request.

F2002-RTD-03

August 7, 2002

Town of Ponoka

The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard the applicant's request.

F2002-RTD-02

April 10, 2002

Town of Ponoka

The Town of Ponoka requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized the Town of Ponoka to disregard the applicant's request.

F2002-RTD-01

March 21, 2002

Municipal Affairs

Municipal Affairs requested authorization under section 55 of FOIP to disregard an applicant's access request. The Commissioner authorized Municipal Affairs to disregard the applicant's request.