|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1756
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-990163-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry). The request was for access to all records concerning the appellant and "located at Central Services Adoption Unit (or elsewhere) in regard to false abuse allegations which were initiated in 1997." The appellant indicated that the scope of his request did not include information on the adoption itself, since he already had those records. The Ministry identified 74 pages of records which were responsive to the request and denied access to them on the basis of sections 21 and 49(b) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the records. During the mediation of the appeal, the Ministry granted the appellant access to pages 30, 36, 52, 56 and 60. The remaining pages, comprised of correspondence, transcripts, interoffice memoranda, referral forms and facsimile cover pages, remain at issue. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry, the appellant and to two other individuals whose rights may be affected by the outcome of this appeal (the affected persons). Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant and one of the affected persons. At the Inquiry stage of the appeal, the appellant provided me with a consent executed by his wife authorizing the disclosure to the appellant of her personal information which may be contained in the records. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including any identifying number assigned to the individual and the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. The records at issue deal generally with certain allegations made against the appellant and were compiled by the Ministry in the course of its determination as to the appropriateness of an adoption application by the appellant and his wife. They include the original allegations received by the Ministry, various contacts between the Ministry and the appellant, his wife, the affected persons and the social worker who performed a home study in support of the appellant's adoption application. The records also contain a number of e-mails and more formal memoranda and correspondence between Ministry staff and adoption and child welfare officials in British Columbia. With two exceptions, I find that because the records relate to the adoption application by the appellant and his wife and certain allegations against him, each of the records contain the personal information of the appellant. Record 14 is an e-mail between Ministry staff regarding arrangements for a telephone conference call between Ministry staff and an official with the British Columbia adoption office. This record does not contain personal information because the individuals referred to in the e-mail are acting in their professional capacities as employees of the adoption branch of the Ministry and their British Columbia equivalents. Record 61 is a FAX cover page containing the address, telephone numbers (home and office) and FAX number of one of the affected persons. Accordingly, I find that Record 61 contains only the personal information of this individual. UNJUSTIFIED INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY Section 47(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to their own personal information held by a government body. Section 49 provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access. Under section 49(b) of the Act , where a record contains personal information of both the appellant and other individuals and the institution determines that the disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy, the institution has the discretion to deny the requester access to that information. Sections 21(2) and (3) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would result in an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individual to whom the information relates. Section 21(2) provides some criteria for the head to consider in making this determination. Section 21(3) lists the types of information whose disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 21(4) refers to certain types of information whose disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The Divisional Court has stated that once a presumption against disclosure has been established, it cannot be rebutted by either one or a combination of the factors set out in section 21(2) [ John Doe v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 767]. It found that a section 21(3) presumption can be overcome if the personal information at issue falls under section 21(4) of the Act or if a finding is made under section 23 of the Act that a compelling public interest exists in the disclosure of the record in which the personal information is contained which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 23 exemption. In this case, the only exception to the section 21(1) exemption which could apply is section 21(1)(f). The Ministry takes the position that some of the personal information contained in Records 1-4, 12-13, 16-17, 22-23, 27-28, 38-43, 45-50, 54 and 58 falls within the presumption in section 21(3)(a) (medical, psychiatric or psychological history). I note, however, that the medical information referred to in Records 22-23 and 27-28 relates only to the appellant. I find that since this information is "about" the appellant only, its disclosure cannot constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy (Order M-1141). The Ministry also argues that Records 1-4, 12-13, 22-23, 24-26, 27-28, 37, 38-43, 45-50, 54 and 58 contain information which falls within the presumption in section 21(3)(g) (personal recommendations or evaluations). Again, I note that the personal information referred to in Records 22-23, 27-28 and 37 relates only to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
21(2)
-
21(2)(f)
-
21(2)(h)
-
21(3)(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 16, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|