|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-540
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9200830
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) from an individual for two copies of his Vocational Rehabilitation file for the period from November 22, 1982 to November 6, 1992. The requester, who is visually impaired, asked that one copy be sent to him in regular format and that the other be provided in 24 point type (enlarged) bold print. The Ministry provided the requester with a copy of his file in regular print, but refused to supply him with a second copy in an enlarged format. In its decision letter, the Ministry submitted that sections 30(1) and (3) of the Act governed the extent of its statutory obligations in this case. These sections essentially provide that a requester is to be given access to a copy of the record to which he or she is entitled, unless it would not be reasonably practicable to reproduce the record by reason of its length or nature. The decision letter further indicated that it would cost approximately $420 to enlarge the documents and that one of the Ministry's employees had already spent several hours with the requester, at which time portions of the file were read to him. Based on these considerations, the Ministry took the position that it had complied with its obligations under section 30 of the Act . The requester appealed the Ministry's decision. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the Ministry agreed to provide the appellant with a total of 39 pages of records in the file in 24 point bold type print. As the appeal proceeded, it also became clear that the appellant was relying on the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code ) to support his position that the Ministry was obliged to provide his personal information to him in an enlarged format. This was a case, therefore, where the appellant had the option of filing a complaint against the Ministry with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The appellant has chosen, however, to pursue his appeal with the Commissioner's Office under the Act . Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Ministry's decision was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. In the Notice of Inquiry, the parties were asked to comment on the potential applicability of section 48(4) of the Act and the provisions of the Code to the facts of the appeal. In its representations, the Ministry indicated that its original estimate of $420 to reformat the file was too low and that an estimate of $2,688 more accurately reflected the costs which would be incurred. ISSUES: A. Whether section 30 of the Act applies to the records at issue in this appeal. B. Whether section 48(4) of the Act requires that the Ministry provide the appellant with his personal information in 24 point bold type print. C. Whether the Commissioner's office is required to interpret the provisions of section 48(4) of the Act according to the principles set out in section 11(1)(a) of the Code . D. Whether the Ministry's decision not to provide the personal information to the appellant in an enlarged format infringes his rights under section 11(1)(a) of the Code . SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether section 30 of the Act applies to the records at issue in this appeal. The Ministry has relied on section 30 of the Act to support its position that it is not obliged to provide the relevant records to the appellant in an enlarged format. Sections 30(1), (2) and (3) of the Act read as follows: (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who is given access to a record or a part thereof under this Act shall be given a copy thereof unless it would not be reasonably practicable to reproduce the record or part thereof by reason of its length or nature, in which case the person shall be given an opportunity to examine the record or part thereof in accordance with the regulations. (2) Where a person requests the opportunity to examine a record or a part thereof and it is reasonably practicable to give the person that opportunity, the head shall allow the person to examine the record or part thereof in accordance with the regulations. (3) Where a person examines a record or part thereof and wishes to have portions of it copied, the person shall be given a copy of those portions unless it would not be reasonably practicable to reproduce them by reason of their length or nature. Section 30 falls under Part II of the Act which governs how requests for general records are to be processed. This section describes the manner in which requesters may examine records which are disclosed under this Part of the legislation. The present appeal, however, involves a request by an individual for access to his own personal information. Requests of this nature fall under Part III, rather than Part II, of the Act . The result is that section 48(4) of the Act , and not section 30, defines how the information is to be provided to this requester. Thus, the contents of section 30 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this appeal. ISSUE B: Whether section 48(4) of the Act requires that the Ministry provide the appellant with his personal information in 24 point bold type print. Section 48(4) of the Act reads as follows: Where access to personal information is to be given, the head shall ensure that the personal information is provided to the individual in a comprehensible format and in a manner which indicates the general terms and conditions under which the personal information is stored and used. (emphasis added) In its representations respecting this section, the Ministry indicated that: A "comprehensible format" would indicate a format that would provide an opportunity to understand information that is documented and held by an institution. Equipped with a photocopy of the file documentation which could be interpreted by any doctor or professional in this client's field if he so desired, along with the personalized service or interpretation that was offered by his [Vocational Rehabilitation Services] Counsellor, the appellant was provided sufficient opportunity to consider the information to be in a comprehensible fo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 24, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|