|
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Commissioner.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows:
1. On December 15, 1988, the requester, represented by her lawyer, made a request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the "institution") for the following information:
Contents of my file BATEMO5054090 as outlined in #3.
All information relating to the applicant on file with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Director of Income Maintenance, including the contents of an eligibility review officer's report made sometime during 1988.
2. On December 28, 1988, the institution responded, granting partial access to the records requested. The institution claimed exemption for part of the record under subsection 14(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.
3. On January 24, 1989, the requester appealed the institution's decision through her lawyer, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution.
4. The records at issue were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer from my staff. In an effort to effect a settlement, the Appeals Officer contacted both the appellant and the institution. The Eligibility Review Officer of the institution contacted some of the persons whose names and information were contained in the record with a view to ascertaining whether they objected to disclosure of this information to the appellant. One person consented to the release of the information concerning him, and the institution agreed to release this information to the appellant. Other persons concerned declined to consent to disclosure. However, at this time, the institution was of the opinion that only one affected person refused to consent to disclosure, and conveyed this opinion to the Appeals Officer.
5. The institution suggested that the appellant could subpoena the entire record at issue upon the commencement of the hearing before the Social Assistance Review Board, and at that time request an adjournment to enable him to examine the record. The appellant was not satisfied with this suggestion. Settlement was not effected and the parties indicated that they were content to proceed to an inquiry.
...
|