The University had its access to information officer swear an affidavit that she was required to work long hours of overtime because of the requester's many requests over the years. The University also said that one time the requester cancelled a cheque and did not pay the access fee, and that the requester was misrepresenting the IPC in blog articles critical of the IPC, and that the University staff feared for their safety, and so on.
Adjudicator Haly did not accept the University's arguments, and concluded her ruling as follows (below). She also stated that if unspecified "aspects of the appellant's [requester's] behaviour ... were to continue" then this could possibly provide a basis for a future University claim (to avoid access pursuant to the law).
 I adopt the approach set out by the Senior Adjudicator for the present appeal. The appellant has provided the purpose behind his request which is the subject of this appeal. I find his reasons to be reasonable and I find that his request is not for a purpose other than to obtain access. Accordingly, I find that the university has not established section 5.1(b).
 In summary, I find that section 10(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 460 do not apply to the appellant’s request that is the subject of the appeal. While I have found that the university has not, in this appeal, established that the appellant is frivolous and vexatious, I have found that there are aspects of the appellant’s behavior, that if were to continue, could form the basis of another claim by the university.
1. I do not uphold the university’s decision that the appellant’s request is frivolous and vexatious.
2. I order the university to issue an access decision regarding the request, in accordance with sections 26, 28 and 29 of the Act, treating the date of this order as the date of the request, and without recourse to a time extension under section 27.