In response to your first question, the frivolous and vexatious provision, as it's applied by the courts and in other jurisdictions where they have this type of legislation, requires bad faith. These are not instances where the media or individuals are making requests for information that is important. These are situations where individuals are asking for the same thing over and over again. Usually it's very rare to make a finding of frivolous and vexatious. There must be sufficient evidence to discern that they are abusing the system because there is bad faith involved. This would not be applicable to the media, as you've outlined, or to individuals who simply want information. They're entitled to ask for it.
On your second question, about redaction, that's a good point. It goes to the recommendation of the CBA and the commissioner for a review of the legislation to modernize the manner in which information is made available, what exemptions should apply, and how they should be managed, etc. These are all things that in the modern technological age can be facilitated in a way that wasn't envisaged when this act was crafted.