|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R BACKGROUND: On February 9, 1991, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the "institution") received a request for access to certain information. This request sought clarification of the response provided by the institution to a previous request submitted by the same requester, and reiterated his request for information concerning the academic background and professional experience of the Registrar of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act . The institution responded on May 2, 1991, advising the requester that access to the information relating to the Registrar was denied, pursuant to section 21(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("the Act "). [The institution's responses to other portions of the request were resolved during the course of mediation, and are not at issue.] On May 6, 1991, the requester appealed the institution's decision, and notice of the appeal was sent to the institution and the appellant. During the course of mediation, the scope of the appeal was narrowed. The parties agreed that the only record which remains at issue in the appeal is a copy of the Registrar's resume submitted at the time of his appointment to the position in 1988. The institution confirmed that the Registrar has not consented to the release of this record. Because settlement of this appeal was not possible, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head of the institution was sent to the appellant, the institution and the Registrar (the "affected person"). Written representations were received from the institution and the appellant. The institution also provided representations on behalf of the affected person. I have considered all representations in reaching my decision in this appeal. ISSUES: A. Whether the information contained in the record qualifies as "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . B. If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether disclosure of the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy. C. If the answer to Issue B is yes, whether there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 21 exemption. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A : Whether the information contained in the record qualifies as "personal information", as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . The definition of "personal information" found in section 2(1) of the Act states, in part: "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, ... (b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved [emphasis added] ... In my view, the record contains information relating to the education and employment history of the affected person, and clearly falls within the definition of personal information as set out in paragraph (b). ISSUE B : If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether disclosure of the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy. Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 21(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this personal information, except in certain circumstances. One such circumstance is contained in section 21(1)(f) of the Act , which reads: A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except, if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Sections 21(2) and (3) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 21(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of criteria for the head to consider in making this determination, and section 21(3) identifies types of personal information, the disclosure of which is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The institution has cited section 21(3)(d) as the basis for refusing to disclose the record. This section states: A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy where the personal information, relates to employment or educational history; I have reviewed the record and, consistent with previous orders (Orders 11, 97, 99, P-273 and M-7), I find that the personal information contained in the record satisfies the requirements of the presumption contained in section 21(3)(d), and that disclosure of the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's personal privacy. Having determined that the presumption of unjustified invasion of personal privacy has been established under section 21(3)(d), I must now consider whether any other provisions of the Act come into play to rebut this presumption. Section 21(4) outlines a number of circumstances which, if they exist, could operate to rebut a presumption under section 21(3). In my view, the record at issue in this appeal does not contain any information relevant to section 21(4). In Order 20, dated October 7, 1988, former Commissioner Sidney B. Linden stated that "... a combination of the circumstances set out in subsection 21(2) might be so compelling as to outweigh a presumption under subsection 21(3). However, in my view such a case would be extremely unusual". The appellant submits that sections 21(2)(a) and (d) are relevant considerations in the context of this appeal. These two sections read as follows: A head, in determining whether a disclosure of personal information constitutes an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, shall consider all the relevant circumstances including whether, (a) the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the Government of Ontario and its agenc
|