|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-943
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9500012
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Ministry of Citizenship (the Ministry) received a request for access to information relating to the Advocacy Project Team and the Advocacy Commission (the Commission). The requester is particularly interested in documentation concerning the transfer of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (the PPAO) to the Commission. The request was contained in one letter and actually consisted of 10 separate requests for various categories of different, albeit related, documentation. The requester asked the Ministry to "Proceed with these 10 requests ... separately". The Ministry advised the requester that it would respond to two of the requests separately. With respect to the remaining eight requests, the Ministry provided the requester with a fee estimate comprised of invoiced fees for search time in the amount of $281.25 and $60 for photocopying 300 pages at $0.20 per page. The Ministry also advised the requester that "Additional fees may be required for preparing the records for release (i.e. severing) and photocopies. As well, the invoiced fees for temporary help may exceed the amounts estimated". It also advised that additional pages might be located once the search was completed. The Ministry did not make an access decision. The requester subsequently wrote the Ministry raising a number of concerns with respect to the manner in which the fee estimate was calculated. He maintained that the records responsive to two of the requests contained his personal information such that no fees could be charged. He also objected to the fact that the fee estimate was combined for the eight requests. He indicated that without being able to ascertain the true estimate for each request, he could not determine which requests he could pay for and which were too expensive. He also applied for a fee waiver for those files in which the fees would be $5 or less. The requester also appealed the Ministry's decision to this office. During mediation of the appeal, the appellant agreed that the only issue he would pursue would be that of whether the Ministry could issue one fee estimate for processing eight requests. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. Submissions were received from the Ministry only. The appellant advised that he would be relying on his original correspondence and representations made during the course of the appeal. DISCUSSION: The issue which I must determine is whether it was appropriate for the Ministry to combine the eight requests into one for the purpose of searching for the records responsive to each individual request and calculating the fees. I am mindful of the fact that in Order 93, former Commissioner Sidney B. Linden found that for the purposes of a time extension appeal it was inappropriate for the institution to process multiple requests as a single request with six parts. He stated that a requester "should not be penalized for having listed multiple requests in one letter ..." In its submissions, the Ministry has explained why it issued one fee estimate to cover the eight requests. It also provided information on the details of the searches conducted to date and the tasks which have yet to be undertaken in order to respond to the request. The Ministry has characterized five of the requests (940113-117) as relating to records concerning the PPAO. Another request (940118) is for all records related to the Ontario Psychiatric Patients Group (the OPPG). The OPPG is a group which has expressed its opposition to the PPAO transfer. The Ministry thus maintains that records responsive to this request would most likely be responsive to the other five requests concerning the PPAO. I also note that there is considerable overlap in the five PPAO requests both in terms of the subject matter of the requested records as well as the areas of search identified by the appellant. The Ministry has stated that a large number of documents exist which are responsive to these six requests as well as indicating what Ministry files and departments will have to be searched to locate all the responsive records. The Ministry next indicates that requests 940119 and 940120 are also interrelated as they both concern the recruitment of a Chair and Commissioners for the Advocacy Commission. The Ministry states that there were over 2,000 applications for appointment to the Commission and that 50 applicants were interviewed, some on more than one occasion. The Ministry indicates that all interview related files will have to be searched in order to respond to request 940120. The Ministry then explains that, prior to issuing its fee estimate, it spent seven hours searching for the records and located approximately 300 pages of documentation. It estimated that it requires a minimum of 10-15 additional hours to complete the search. Given the amount of time thus required, and the fact that the Commission staff were working on a number of major initiatives in anticipation of the proclamation of the legislation governing its mandate, the Ministry decided to adopt "... the following practical approach to process the files ...": (1) conduct one comprehensive search; (2) hire one temporary staff to conduct the search and prepare the records for disclosure; and (3) issue one fee estimate The Ministry has further explained the manner in which the Commission files are organized. The Commission does not have a centralized filing system. Staff members kept their own files with respect to an issue. The Ministry notes that, in many instances, records were copied and distributed to several employees for comment and reference. Thus, there might be duplication of the records. The Ministry thus submits that, despite the fact that the appellant maintained that each of the eight requests should be considered separately, its view was that one search, conducted by one individual would best meet the appellant's needs in that it would result in a more efficient search, would eliminate duplication and result in significantly lower fees. Given the particular circumstances of this case, I agree with the Ministry that it was appropriate to combine some of the requests. In my view, based on the close connection between both the subject matter of requests 940113-118 and the areas to be searched to locate records responsive to these requests, it was acceptable for the
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Anita Fineberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 13, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|