IPCO Instructs Requestor to Resubmit FOI Request

Today’s article is a response to a question from an FOI Assist Knowledge Base reader in Ontario:

Our office has recently encountered an issue on two separate occasions involving the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) advising requesters to resubmit the same Freedom of Information (FOI) request after they missed the 30-day window to file an appeal. This has raised some questions for us regarding best practices in such scenarios.

We’re interested in finding out the best approach to this situation.

Specifically:

• Should we treat the resubmitted request as a new FOI and reissue the original decision?

• Or refuse the request on the basis that it has already been answered, and inform the requester accordingly? (Is there any ground to support this approach?)

We would greatly appreciate any insights or experiences you can share on how to handle these cases.

The Short Answer

In most cases, if the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPCO) has advised a requestor to refile their request, your institution should process it again—ideally using your original decision and your previously prepared records to significantly reduce the time and effort required.

Refusing the request outright will generally not be justified and may weaken your position if the matter proceeds to appeal.

Practical Guidance

Based on the scenario described, it sounds like the IPCO expects your institution to treat each refiled request as a new one. The good news is, unless the wording of the request has changed or the resubmitted request covers a different time period, your institution can simply reuse the work it has already done to process the same request again, including citing the same grounds for refusal.

That may feel redundant—but there are practical advantages to treating the request as new:

• You already have a copy of the records.
  You’ve previously identified the responsive records, applied redactions, and drafted a decision letter. Much of that work can be reused.
• You can improve your decision before appeal.
  If the requestor missed the 30-day appeal window but is now resubmitting their request, it’s fair to assume they may file an appeal this time. That gives your institution a valuable second chance to make sure your decision is complete and fully reasoned before it proceeds to the IPCO for review.
  If there were any additional exemptions that you could have used but for some reason did not cite in the first decision, now is the time to include them.

Keep in mind, the fees set out in your new decision letter should reflect the reduced effort of processing the same request again. As you likely won’t have to spend nearly as much time searching for responsive documents or preparing them for disclosure, your new decision should update the fee breakdown to reflect the lower amount of time required this time around. (This assumes, of course, that the requestor paid the fees your institution demanded in your original decision letter.)

Can You Refuse to Process the Refiled Request?

If you are looking to decline the request entirely without relying on the specific exemptions cited in your original decision letter, you would need a legal basis for doing so. The only avenue that comes to mind would be to declare the request frivolous or vexatious under MFIPPA/FIPPA—but that’s a high bar.

A frivolous or vexatious request involves one or more of the following:

• A request made in bad faith
• A request made for a purpose other than to obtain access
• A pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access
• A pattern of conduct that would interfere with the operations of the institution

In this case, there’s no indication that the requestor has been submitting a high volume of requests to your institution. Rather, the requestor re-filed a request because IPCO told them to. I think your institution would be hard pressed to characterize this as a request made for an improper purpose, or as an abuse of the right of access, when the requestor was merely following IPCO’s instructions.

Further, if you were to issue a decision refusing to disclose the records solely on the basis that the request was frivolous or vexatious, not only would IPCO be unlikely to uphold your instituition’s decision, but you could potentially lose the benefit of the statutory exemptions cited in your original decision letter, as they would not be included in your new decision, and it is that new decision that would form the basis of the requestor’s appeal.

Final Thoughts

From a practical and strategic standpoint, the best course of action is usually to:

1. Treat the resubmitted request as new;
2. Reissue your original decision with any necessary updates;
3. Ensure your fee breakdown reflects the reduced processing effort (if you already collected the fees the first time);
4. Take the opportunity to strengthen your decision with any additional exemptions or clarifications.

It’s an unusual situation, but not necessarily a difficult one, especially when you’ve already done the bulk of the work the first time around.

Your Turn

Have you encountered this issue at your institution, or do you have any other FOI questions that would make a good topic for a future article? Please let us know—we’re always happy to learn from our readers and to share practical insights here on the FOI Assist Knowledge Base.

Make Freedom of Information Easy™ with the FOI Assist Software

Are you looking for a better way to manage re‑filed requests and streamline decision‑making? The FOI Assist software is built precisely for situations like this. Designed by an Ontario FOI lawyer, it:

• Keeps a complete file history—including fee estimates, indexes of records and decision letters—so you can quickly reissue responses and update them in a flash.
• Tracks critical timelines, deadlines and escalation points—helpful for tracking the 30‑day appeal window in a scenario like this.
• Prompts you to evaluate relevant exemptions and other considerations, so your decisions are robust and appeal‑ready.

Whether you’re preparing a decision letter from scratch or polishing up an existing one, FOI Assist keeps everything organised, compliant, and efficient.

Book a demo today and discover how even an unusual scenario like this one can be handled with clarity and confidence.