|
|
Document
|
|
P-1350
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P_9600376
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) received arequest under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act )for access to the contents of any files in the Ministry's custody regarding anamed private adoption agency (the agency) and its two principals (theprincipals). The request was made on behalf of the principals (the requesters)by their counsel. Counsel stated that the agency is involved in facilitatingforeign adoptions and indicated that he believed that information about therequesters and/or the agency can be found in that part of the Ministry which isinvolved in regulating the adoption process in Ontario. The Ministry located records responsive to this request and provided partialaccess to them. The Ministry denied access, in full or in part, to theremaining records on the basis of the following exemptions under the Act : relations with other governments - section 15 solicitor-client privilege - section 19 invasion of privacy - section 21(1). The requesters (now the appellants) appealed this decision. During mediation, the appellants indicated that they were not pursuing thoseportions of the records which severed only the names of individuals. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry to the appellants and the Ministry. Because the records appeared to contain the personal information of theappellants, the Appeals Officer raised the application of sections 49(a)(discretion to refuse requester's own information) and 49(b) (invasion ofprivacy). Both parties submitted representations in response to this Notice. In their representations, the appellants indicate that they are no longerpursuing access to any records or parts of records the disclosure of which wouldconstitute an unjustified invasion of privacy. Further, the appellants clarifythat the focus of their interest in the records is on communications made toforeign authorities, and in particular, to Russia. In this regard, theappellants state that the focus is not on documentation received from foreign governments but rather documents sent to them. However, because other records may contain information which would reveal thecontent of these communications, the appellants indicate that they continue topursue all records for which section 15 has been claimed. As a result of the appellants' clarifications, the records at issue in thisappeal have been significantly narrowed, and consist of the following: the severed portions of three interoffice memoranda from the Co-ordinator,Crown Ward and Adoption Services Unit (the Co-ordinator), dated July 26, 1996,July 22, 1996 and January 25, 1996, respectively (Records 7, 8 - 9 and 17); facsimiles and letters to and from the National Adoption Desk (the NAD),Human Resources Development Canada (Records 23, 24, 25 - 27, 47, 48, 49, 56 - 66and 67); a Ministry memorandum regarding a meeting on November 4, 1988 between theMinistry and officials of the Government of Canada and another foreigngovernment, dated November 8, 1988 (Records 95 - 96); notes regarding the issues to be discussed at the November 4, 1988 meeting(Record 97); notes made by Ministry staff at the November 4, 1988 meeting (Records 98 -99); notes of a telephone call between a Ministry employee and an official of aforeign government, dated September 28, 1988 (Record 106); a Briefing Note (undated) regarding one of the appellants (the severedportion of Record 115, and Record 116). As a result of the appellants' clarification, the remaining issues to bedetermined are whether the records at issue are exempt under sections 15 and49(a) of the Act . DISCUSSION: DISCRETION TO REFUSE REQUESTER'S OWN INFORMATION/RELATIONS WITHOTHER GOVERNMENTS Under the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part,to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. In reviewing therecords, I find that they all contain references to the appellants and thisinformation qualifies as their personal information. Section 47(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of accessto their own personal information held by a government body. Section 49provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access. Section 49(a)reads: A head may refuse to disclose to the individual to whom the informationrelates personal information, where section 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or 22would apply to the disclosure of that personal information. [emphasis added] The Ministry claims that all of the records at issue are exempt undersections 15(a) and/or (b). These provisions provide: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure couldreasonably be expected to, (a)prejudice the conduct of intergovernmental relations by the Governmentof Ontario or an institution; (b)reveal information received in confidence from another government orits agencies by an institution; and shall not disclose any such record without the prior approval of theExecutive Council. In their representations, the appellants refer to a letter dated July 22,1996 from the Co-ordinator to their counsel which they attached to theirsubmissions. They indicate that this letter confirms that "the Ministryhas at no time composed or transmitted any letter etc. to Russian authoritiesthat even mentions [the agency or the appellants]". The appellants submitthat by writing this letter, the Ministry has waived its right to "protection"[under the Act ] with respect to any communications with the Russianauthorities. Moreover, the appellants assert that only by reviewing thecommunications in the records can the Co-ordinator's statement be "provencorrect". I have reviewed all of the records at issue and the letter written by theCo-ordinator. In my view, the assertions made in this letter have no relevancewith respect to whether or not section 15 applies to the records at issue. The appellants also indicate that the Ministry's role with respect toadoptions finalized in foreign jurisdictions is minimal. As such, theappellants assert that there is little in the way of direct governmentalrelations between the Ministry and foreign governments in this regard. Giventhis restricted role, the appellants argue that disclosure of communicationsbetween the Ministry and foreign authorities could not prejudiceintergovernmental relations. In its representations, the Ministry provides some background informationregarding international adoptions. It has attached an excerpt from its InternationalAdoption Booklet (the Booklet) in order to place the circumstances of thisappeal in context. The Booklet describes the Minis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 24, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|