CHARLOTTETOWN – The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has dismissed an application from a man who sought to overturn a decision by the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner that permitted a government department to ignore his persistent requests for his own child protection records1. The court found that the Commissioner acted reasonably and fairly when she concluded the man’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the right to access information.
The case involves Michael Oatway, a former child in the permanent care and custody of the Director of Child Protection. In an effort to better understand his time in care, Mr. Oatway began a process to obtain the complete, unredacted file pertaining to him. He initially made several requests directly to the Director of Child Protection, as governed by the former Child Protection Act. In response, he was provided with a number of records, but they were redacted, meaning certain information was blacked out.
Unsatisfied with the redacted documents, Mr. Oatway shifted his strategy. Between 2018 and 2022, he submitted numerous access to information requests, not to the Director, but to the Department of Social Development and Seniors. He filed these requests under the province’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, commonly known as FOIPP. The Department repeatedly informed Mr. Oatway that FOIPP was not the correct legal avenue for accessing child protection records and that he must continue to deal with the Director of Child Protection under the specific legislation governing those sensitive files. Despite this guidance, Mr. Oatway persisted.
This persistence led the Department to take formal action. On November 28, 2022, after receiving four requests from Mr. Oatway for the same or substantially similar information, the Department applied to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for authorization to disregard them. Less than a month later, on December 13, 2022, the Department made a second application to the Commissioner concerning five additional requests from Mr. Oatway. In total, nine of his requests were brought before the Commissioner. The records sought in all of these requests were either unredacted copies of his child protection file or an in-person inspection of the unredacted file.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner initiated a review process. Mr. Oatway was invited to provide a response, which he submitted in late December 2022. He also requested and was granted a meeting with the Commissioner in January 2023. Following that meeting, the Commissioner sent a letter to Mr. Oatway addressing a potential issue. She disclosed that, over twenty years prior in her former role as a government lawyer, she had represented the Director of Child Protection in a legal proceeding that involved Mr. Oatway’s mother. The Commissioner assured him in writing that her past involvement and any knowledge of his family circumstances were not relevant to the matter at hand and would not influence her decision regarding the Department’s application.
After all submissions were received, the Commissioner issued a detailed written decision on March 27, 2024. She concluded that Mr. Oatway’s nine requests were “repetitious” and constituted an “abuse of the right to access” information under section 52 of the FOIPP Act. The Commissioner found that Mr. Oatway had continued to file the same requests with the Department despite knowing it lacked the authority to grant them and that he had a stated intention of continuing to do so until he received the records. Based on this, she exercised her discretion to authorize the Department to disregard not only the nine existing requests but also any future requests from Mr. Oatway for the same child protection records. This authorization was specific and did not prevent him from requesting other types of information from the Department.
In response, Mr. Oatway, representing himself, brought the matter to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, asking a judge to perform a judicial review and set aside the Commissioner’s decision. He made four primary arguments. First, he submitted that the decision effectively blocked his healing journey by preventing him from understanding his childhood. Second, he argued the Commissioner was in a conflict of interest and had not been fair because of her past professional role. Third, he challenged what he saw as an incoherency in the Commissioner’s reasoning, questioning how she could have the power to authorize the disregard of requests for records she claimed to have no jurisdiction over. Fourth, Mr. Oatway argued his constitutional right to freedom of expression was infringed because the Department used his past emails and social media posts as evidence of his intent to continue filing requests.
The court, presided over by Justice Jonathan M. Coady, heard the case on January 29, 2025, and delivered its judgment on July 29, 2025, siding with the Commissioner and the Department.
In his written decision, Justice Coady first clarified the court’s role is not to rehear the case but to review the Commissioner’s decision for reasonableness and procedural fairness. He found the Commissioner’s decision was substantively reasonable. Justice Coady wrote that the Commissioner’s reasons were logical, transparent, and justified by the facts and law. The judge noted that the Commissioner correctly identified the purpose of the “abuse of process” section in the FOIPP Act, which is to protect public bodies from misuse of the access system, and that such an authorization should be an exception, not the rule. Her analysis of what makes a request “repetitious” and an “abuse” was found to be sound.
Justice Coady then addressed Mr. Oatway’s specific claims. Regarding the argument that the decision frustrated his healing, the judge acknowledged the sincerity of Mr. Oatway’s quest but explained that the Commissioner’s decision did not create a dead end. Instead, it correctly pointed out that Mr. Oatway was using the wrong process. The decision essentially told him that to get child protection records, he must go through the correct legal channel, which is not the general FOIPP Act.
On the question of the Commissioner’s alleged conflict of interest, the court found no evidence to support a reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice Coady noted the Commissioner’s past involvement as a lawyer was more than two decades ago, was fully disclosed to Mr. Oatway, and was unrelated to the technical, procedural question before her. The issue for the Commissioner was not the content of the child protection file, but whether the FOIPP process was being used improperly. The judge also pointed out that Mr. Oatway did not raise an objection about bias until after the unfavorable decision was released, a delay that can waive the right to object.
Justice Coady also systematically dismantled the argument that the Commissioner’s position was incoherent. He explained that the legislature created two distinct statutory systems. The FOIPP Act provides a general process for accessing government records, and it gives the Commissioner the power to police that process. A separate law, formerly the Child Protection Act and now the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, creates a specific, self-contained system for accessing sensitive child protection records through the Director. The Commissioner was operating correctly within her jurisdiction under FOIPP to stop an improper request, even though the subject of that request properly belonged to the other system.
Finally, the court dismissed the freedom of expression argument. Justice Coady explained that the Department using Mr. Oatway’s own written words from emails and social media as evidence against him in a legal proceeding does not infringe his rights. He was not prevented from expressing himself; rather, his expressions were used to demonstrate his state of mind and intentions, which is a normal part of legal proceedings. Justice Coady remarked that expression is “like a boomerang” that can return to its sender in ways not originally intended.
The court ultimately explained that Mr. Oatway’s grievance is with the Director of Child Protection, not the Department or the Commissioner. Justice Coady explicitly outlined the correct path forward for Mr. Oatway, stating that child protection records must be requested from the Director under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Should he be unsatisfied with the Director’s decision, the next step is a review by a panel, and after that, potentially a judicial review by the court.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. No legal costs were awarded to any of the parties.
