|
Summary
|
|
On November 4, 1999 I issued Order PO-1725, which addressed the decisions by Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to deny access to some of the requested records in Appeals PA-990117-1, PA-990118-1 and PA-990076-1. The records in these appeals consisted of the individual entries in the appointment calendar of a named employee of the Premier's Office, for the time period June 1995 to September 15, 1998.
In Order PO-1725 I upheld the decision of Cabinet Office to deny access to several of the entries pursuant to section 21(1) of the Act, and ordered the disclosure of other entries I found did not qualify for this exemption claim. In reaching this decision, I discussed the definition of "personal information" in section 2(1) of the Act, and in particular the distinction between information relating to an individual's personal and professional capacities:
The Commissioner has recognized a distinction between the personal and professional capacities in which information concerning the activities of government employees/officials are reflected in records. Sometimes records will contain information specifically enumerated in the definition of personal information at section 2(1) of the Act, in which case the proper characterization is straightforward. In other cases, where it is clear that a government employee/official is acting in a professional or official capacity, past orders of this Office have found that references to employees in records generated in the normal course of these professional/official activities are not "about" the individual and, therefore, do not qualify as personal information (see Orders 139, P-157, P-257, P-326, P-377, 194, M-82, P-477 and P-470 and Reconsideration Order R-980015). In Order 139, for example, the name and professional affiliation of a welfare worker who had lodged a complaint in her official capacity about the eligibility of another individual to receive benefits was held not to constitute the welfare worker's personal information where this information appeared in a report of the complaint.
Cabinet Office appears to accept this distinction, and has disclosed a number of records which contain references to appointments made by/for the named employee with other employees in the Premier's Office, Cabinet Office and ministries of the Ontario government. Having reviewed the remaining records, and considered the various representations submitted in response to the Notice of Inquiry, I find that other entries also relate to scheduled meetings between the named employee and other government employees in the normal course of their professional activities. In my view, the information contained in these entries is not "about" the named employee or other employees, and does not qualify as their personal information for the purposes of section 2(1).
In this context, I found that the entry for June 25, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. comprised professional capacity information which did not satisfy the definition of personal information and, therefore, did not qualify for exemption under section 21(1) of the Act.
I received a letter dated November 30, 1999 from one of the parties asking me to reconsider Order PO-1725 as it related to the June 25, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. entry, on the basis that I had made an accidental error and/or that there was a jurisdictional defect in my decision with respect to this entry.
I sent a Notice of Reconsideration to the party requesting reconsideration, the requester and Cabinet Office. Only the party requesting reconsideration submitted representations.
|