|
|
Document
|
|
P-271
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeals 900109, 900347 and 900584
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R BACKGROUND: On March 2, 1990, the requester, who had been a student at Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology (the "institution"), submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("the Act "). This request ("Request 1") was for access to records relating to an incident which occurred at the institution, and records relating to other activities at the institution in which he had an interest. Request 1 was received in this office on March 8, 1990, and forwarded to the institution. The institution responded to the requester on April 6, 1990. Full access was granted to some of the requested records, and section 19 of the Act was claimed by the institution as the basis for denying access to other records, either in whole or in part. The institution also indicated that some records did not exist, and asked for clarification of other portions of the request. On May 22, 1990, the requester made another request to the institution ("Request 2"). In Request 2, he sought access to a complete copy of the 1989 interim report of the Ombudsman associated with the institution (the "College Ombudsman"). The institution responded on June 22, 1990, by providing a copy of the interim report in its entirety. On July 5, 1990, the requester made a third request ("Request 3") to the institution, which was received on July 9, 1990 and responded to by the institution on August 7, 1990. Certain records were released to the requester and are not at issue. In the portions of Request 3 which were appealed, the requester sought access to all other interim reports of the College Ombudsman (except the report which was the subject of Request 2), and all reports submitted by the head of the institution to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under section 34(1) of the Act . The institution responded by releasing the College Ombudsman's report dated February 18, 1988, and the institution's annual report to this office, dated January 19, 1990. The requester appealed the head's decisions in response to all three requests. The appeals were based on the appellant's objection to exemptions claimed by the institution, and also on his belief that additional records existed which were responsive to his requests. Because the parties are the same and the subject matter and issues are closely related, the three appeals are being dealt with together in this Order. In accordance with the usual practice, the appeals were assigned to an Appeals Officer, who contacted the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator in order to obtain copies of the requested records and investigate the circumstances of the appeals. The Appeals Officer also contacted the appellant to obtain information concerning the portions of Request 1 for which the institution had sought clarification. On September 12, 1990, after receiving correspondence from the appellant explaining Request 1, the Appeals Officer wrote to the institution's solicitor, clarifying the nature of the records sought by the appellant. The institution wrote to the appellant on November 27, 1990, expanding on its response to the request and disclosing some additional records. In that letter, the institution also advised the appellant that access to some additional records and portions of records was being denied on the basis of the exemptions provided by sections 19 and 21 of the Act . Because the appellant believed additional records existed which were responsive to the requests, a Compliance Investigator from this office attended at the institution's premises for five days and conducted an investigation to determine if any additional responsive records could be located. Prior to the commencement of this investigation, the institution and the appellant were provided with Notices of Inquiry, advising the parties that the appeals had proceeded to the inquiry stage. During the compliance investigation, a number of additional records were identified as being responsive to the appellant's requests. Copies of these records were forwarded to the institution for a decision as to whether they should be released to the appellant. At the same time, an Appeals Officer's Report was sent to the parties, outlining the issues raised in the appeals and inviting representations. Representations were received from the appellant and the institution, and I have taken them into account in reaching my decisions in this Order. On September 13, 1991, the institution issued its decision with respect to the records located during the compliance investigation, and disclosed them to the appellant, subject to a number of severances relating to the personal information of persons other than the appellant, under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Act . At the same time, the institution withdrew its claim for exemption under section 19, and disclosed all of the records and portions of records which had previously been withheld under this section. The reason for withdrawing the exemption, as outlined by the institution in a letter to the appellant, was that the claim was no longer felt to be necessary, and the institution wanted to disclose as much information as possible to the appellant. On January 14, 1992, an additional record was disclosed to the appellant, with severances under section 21 for the personal information of others. The appellant is in agreement that he has received copies of all records which have been identified by the institution and/or the Compliance Investigator as being responsive to his requests. The remaining severances made to these records contain personal information which is properly exempt under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Act , and the appellant has accepted the appropriateness of all such severances. During the course of processing these appeals, it became clear that the College Ombudsman had records in his possession which were responsive to Request 1, which the institution had not included within the scope of its response to the appellant. In addition, the Appeals Officer became aware that one of the appellant's reasons for appealing the decision regarding Request 2 was to obtain information about other students contained in background materials relating to situations mentioned in the College Ombudsman's 1989 interim report. The reason these additional records were excluded from the scope of Requests 1 and 2 is that the institution and the College Ombudsman both take the position that the Coll
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(1) custody or control
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 12, 1992
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|