|
|
Document
|
|
P-1364
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P_9600360
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: On February 29, 1996, there was a disturbance at the Bluewater Youth Centre(Bluewater) which occurred during a strike of prison guards. This facility isoperated by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. As a result of this occurrence, a number of young offenders were transferred toother provincial institutions, including the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre(Elgin Middlesex). Several of the individuals who were transferred to Elgin Middlesexsubsequently claimed that they had been mistreated by staff at this facility. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested thatthe Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy (the Advocacy Office) of theMinistry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) undertake aninvestigation of both incidents. On May 27, 1996, the Advocacy Office providedits report to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. On June 6, 1996, the London Police (the Police) commenced an investigationinto allegations of abuse committed upon young offenders while they wereincarcerated at Elgin Middlesex. The Police issued a news release on December10, 1996, in which they announced that 31 criminal charges had been laid against10 individuals in connection with the above allegations. NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The requester, a researcher with a political party, asked the Ministry forcopies of all documents and communications (including all material prepared bythe Advocacy Office) relating to the situation at Elgin Middlesex which itprovided to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Servicesbetween February 29, 1996 and June 27, 1996. The Ministry denied access to the responsive records in their entirety basedon the following exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (the Act ): advice to government - section 13(1) law enforcement - sections 14(1)(a), (b), (j), (k) and (l) and 14(2)(d) right to a fair trial - section 14(1)(f) invasion of privacy - section 21 confidential correctional record - section 49(e) The requester (now the appellant) appealed this decision to theCommissioner's office. In his letter of appeal, the appellant submitted thatthere exists an overriding public interest in disclosure of the records, thusinferentially raising the application of section 23 of the Act . During mediation, the appellant indicated that he was not seeking access tothe personal information of any young offenders referred to in the records. Inaddition, he advised that he did not require a copy of one of the reportsidentified by the Ministry. He did seek access to the Appendix to this report. The Ministry subsequently identified two additional records as responsive tothe request. The first was a case information record pertaining to two youngoffenders at Elgin Middlesex, dated April 2, 1996. The second was a reportsubmitted to the Ministry on March 6, 1996, entitled "Report on theIncident at Bluewater Youth Centre on February 29, 1996". I will addressthese records in my discussion of "Scope of the Appeal". This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from the Ministry only. The Ministry did notprovide any submissions on the application of sections 14(1)(f), (j), (k) or (l)and section 49(e). As these are discretionary exemptions, I will not considerthem further in this order. I have set out below the records at issue and the exemptions the Ministrysubmits apply to each record at this time. The letters correspond to the recordnumbering system used by the Ministry in its "Index of Records" andsubmissions. (D)Memorandum dated March 14, 1996 to the Strike Response Team from theAdvocacy Office - sections 14(1)(a), (b), 14(2)(d) and 21(1) [eight pages]. (E)Memorandum dated May 27, 1996 to the Director of the Operational Support& Coordination Branch of the Ministry from the Advocacy Office - sections13(1), 14(1)(a) and (b) and 14(2)(d) [four pages]. (F)Letter dated May 30, 1996 to the Deputy Solicitor General and DeputyMinister of Correctional Services from the Advocacy Office - sections 13(1),14(1)(a) and (b) and 14(2)(d) [two pages]. (G)Letter dated June 11, 1996 to the Minister of the Solicitor General andCorrectional Services from the Advocacy Office - sections 13(1) and 14(1)(a)[two pages]. (H)Appendix A to the "Summary Report and Recommendations: On theManagement of Youth Transferred from the Bluewater Youth Centre Upon andFollowing their Admission to Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre" - sections13(1), 14(1)(a) and (b), 14(2)(d) and 21 [seven pages]. In addition, the Ministry claims that the Young Offenders Act (the YOA ) applies to remove Records D and H from the operation of the Act . Initially the Ministry also stated that certain confidentiality provisions inthe Child and Family Services Act prevail over the Act by virtueof section 67(2)2. However, it subsequently withdrew from this position. DISCUSSION: SCOPE OF THE APPEAL Recently Identified Records After it issued its initial decision, the Ministry subsequently locateddetailed case information, dated April 2, 1996, pertaining to two youngoffenders. The Ministry issued a second decision, dated November 13, 1996, inwhich it advised the appellant that it was denying access to this document onthe basis of sections 14(1)(a), (b), (f), (j), (k) and (l), 14(2)(d), 21(1) and49(e). The Ministry declined to forward this record to the Commissioner's office,taking the view that the YOA prohibits it from doing so. Interim OrderP-804 dealt with the issue of the production to this office of records which arethe subject of a YOA claim by an institution. In that order, Inquiry Officer John Higgins found that: (i)he had a duty to decide whether or not the records at issue weregoverned by the YOA in order to determine his jurisdiction over therecords; (ii)he could not decide this preliminary issue without reviewing therecords; (iii)there was no "actual conflict" between the YOA andhis use of the production power under section 52(4) of the Act todetermine the question of his jurisdiction, since section 55 of the Act prohibits the Commissioner or his delegates from disclosing any informationcoming to their knowledge in the performance of their powers, duties andfunctions under the Act ; and (iv)the doctrine of federal paramountcy did not affect his authority torequire the institution to produce the records at issue for his inspection forthis limited purpose. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(1) custody or control
-
14(1)(a)
-
14(1)(b)
-
14(2)(d)
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Anita Fineberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 11, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order – Interim
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|