Diane McLeod-McKay, the territory’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), has issued a decision which she says shows one of the potential restrictions on the right to access information.

The decision dealt with a case in which an applicant had made 30 access to information requests to one Yukon government department over a period of a year.

The department asked McLeod-McKay to grant it relief, under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP Act), to disregard seven of the requests.

McLeod-McKay agreed with the department that the seven requests were repetitious or systematic in nature.

Requiring the department to process them, after it had already processed 23 of the applicant’s access requests, would unreasonably interfere with its operations, she found.

She also authorized the department to disregard future access requests from the applicant that it finds to be (according to the tests set out in the IPC decision) repetitious or systematic and that would unreasonably interfere with its operations.

“Section 43 of the ATIPP Act empowers me to authorize public bodies such as (the) Yukon government departments to disregard access to information requests under certain conditions,” McLeod-McKay said Wednesday.

“However, restricting access to information rights should not be taken lightly, and should only occur after careful consideration of all the facts.

“Authorizing this type of restriction under Section 43 should be the exception to the rule and not a routine option for public bodies to avoid their obligations under the ATIPP legislation.”

The access to information requests in this case were primarily in regard to the applicant’s work performance, including emails, messages, meeting notes, and records regarding recruiting, hiring, and training.  

The department’s position was that the seven requests it sought relief from were duplicative, argumentative and alleged misconduct.

The department said the requests included unworkable criteria, and that the burden on staff would not be outweighed by the benefit to the applicant.

The latter’s position was that the department was improperly processing the access to information requests – which led the applicant to make numerous requests.

In her decision, McLeod-McKay indicated that the government’s records manager and the department may have failed to meet their combined duty to assist the applicant. 

“Many of the access to information requests in this case lacked detail,” she said.

“Requests that do not clearly identify the records or information sought can lead to misinterpretations, which can result in some records being missed, or in access being given to unrelated records.

“This is serious. When a public body receives an access request, there should be no room for interpretation about the records or information sought by an applicant.

“If a public body receives an access request that is not clear, it must work with the records manager to clarify the request.”

The IPC’s decision in this case can be found on her website here with redactions made to protect the identity of the applicant.

The Ombudsman, Information and Privacy Commissioner and Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner is an independent officer of the legislature.