|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-965
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400294, P-9400297, P-9400298 and P-9400299
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant filed a series of requests with the Ministry of Community and Social Services (COMSOC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) where he sought information on the funding provided to the Grandview Survivors Support Group (the GSSG) and/or individual members of that group. The GSSG is an organization of women who had previously been wards of the Grandview Training School for Girls. This group has been involved in negotiations with the provincial government to receive compensation for incidents which occurred while its members were detained at Grandview. COMSOC located over 300 records which were responsive to the requests. It decided not to release any of these documents to the appellant based on the application of seven exemptions contained in the Act . COMSOC took the position that these exemptions applied to each of the records at issue. The appellant appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, COMSOC and the GSSG. Representations were received from COMSOC only. On April 10, 1995, Inquiry Officer Anita Fineberg issued Order P-902 where she considered the issues raised in these appeals. Before applying the exemptions claimed to the records at issue, Inquiry officer Fineberg offered some general comments about the quality of COMSOC's representations. She observed that: (1) The submissions lacked particularity in that they did not refer specifically to any of the over 500 pages of records. (2) COMSOC had not established any link or clear connection between the application of the exemptions claimed and any of the records, either in whole or in part. (3) There was no tangible evidence provided with respect to those exemptions which require that the record in question be prepared for a particular purpose. (4) In most instances, the submissions were simply restatements of the language of the exemptions contained in the Act . On this basis, Inquiry Officer Fineberg indicated that she would dispose of the issues raised in the appeals based on the representations of COMSOC, her own assessment as to whether the exemptions claimed by COMSOC applied and a consideration of any mandatory exemptions. Inquiry Officer Fineberg upheld COMSOC's decision to withhold 30 of the records at issue, either in whole or in part. She directed, however, that COMSOC disclose the remaining documents to the appellant no later than May 10, 1995. DISCUSSION: THE PROPER PARTIES TO THE APPEAL In its representations, COMSOC suggested that there might be additional parties whose views should be sought before an order was issued. In the context of the application of the law enforcement exemptions, COMSOC stated that it was: ... not able to make more complete representations on this issue but can only proceed with the knowledge that release of the documents could affect the interests of a fair trial or any prosecutions, based upon the fact that there is an ongoing investigation. It may be appropriate to seek further submissions on this issue from the appropriate parties. Then, with respect to the application of section 18(1)(g) of the Act (proposed plans of an institution), COMSOC indicated that: ... As the matter [of compensation packages] is being handled by the Attorney General, it may be appropriate to seek further submissions. Inquiry Officer Fineberg treated this matter as a preliminary issue. In her analysis, she first discussed the manner in which government organizations are required to process access requests under the Act : The procedural scheme established by the Act clearly contemplates that the government will speak with one voice with respect to requests for access to government records. The legislation contains various provisions which contemplate that the institution which receives the request may canvass other government institutions, if necessary. For example, when a request for access to a record is made, the institution which receives the request is required to determine whether or not the record requested falls within its custody or control (section 25 of the Act ). In the event that the institution to which the request is directed does not have custody or control, the request must then be transferred to the institution that does have custody or control of the record. Where an institution receives a request for access to a record and the institution considers that another institution has a greater interest in the record, then the request and, if necessary, the record may be transferred to the institution with the "greater interest in the record". In the circumstances where the record affects the interests of more than one institution, the Act expressly contemplates and allows for consultations between government institutions, including municipal institutions, before the institution with custody or control of the document makes an access decision. This consultation is facilitated by means of a time extension (section 27 of the Act ). These provisions are available to allow an institution to consider all viewpoints so that the institution can express the government's position as a whole. Inquiry Officer Fineberg then applied these statutory provisions to the facts of the appeals before her: In this case, the Ministry received the requests on January 31, 1994. On March 2, 1994, it issued decision letters extending the time for a response for an additional 90 days until May 31, 1994. The time extension was claimed pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of consultations with a person outside the Ministry, which the Ministry has identified as the Ministry of the Attorney General. In fact, the actual decision letters were issued on May 4, 1994. Thus, in my view, the Ministry had the opportunity to seek the views of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the exemptions which should apply to the documents and why. As far as submissions from "other appropriate parties" are concerned, I have not been provided with sufficient information to explain who these individuals or organizations might be, why I should consider seeking submissions from them and why the Ministry has not done so. Nor have I been approached by any other government institution which has expressed the desire to make submissions in this appeal. On this bas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 27, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|