|
|
Document
|
|
P-273
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
900437
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations I N T E R I M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R BACKGROUND: On July 9, 1990, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the "institution") received a request for access to personal information of the requester contained in personnel records and information pertaining to the job competition for the position of Manager of Investigations in which he was an unsuccessful candidate. On August 13, 1990, the institution granted partial access to the requested records. The institution denied access to records containing the names, personal correspondence, resumes and responses to interview questions of other individuals under sections 21 and 49(b) of the Act . On September 26, 1990, the requester appealed the institution's decision. Notice of the appeal was sent to the institution and the appellant. Independent of the mediation process, the appellant succeeded in obtaining the consent of four other unsuccessful candidates to the release of certain of their personal information contained in the records. These records were provided to the appellant by the institution and are no longer at issue. During mediation, the section 49(b) exemption claim was withdrawn by the institution, and the appellant was granted access to some additional records. Because settlement of this appeal was not possible, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the appellant, the institution, the two unsuccessful candidates who had not provided their consent to the appellant, and the successful candidate. Enclosed with each notice letter was a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. Written representations were received from the appellant, the institution, and the successful candidate (the "affected person"). In his representations, the appellant indicated that he was only seeking access to the personal information of the affected person and not the other candidates. He also indicated that he was not seeking access to the residential address, telephone number, marital status, children, Social Insurance Number, or date of birth of the affected person, and described the records he was interested in receiving. These records are listed in Appendix A to this Order, in the same numerical order as set out in the index of records provided to the appellant by the institution. In addition, the appellant raised the possible application of section 23 of the Act , and the Appeals Officer then invited the institution to make representations on that section. During the course of this appeal, a question arose regarding the date contained on Record 1. This record identifies the affected person as the only qualified candidate after the interviews. Record 1 is, however, dated prior to the commencement of the interviews. The institution has provided the Appeals Officer with a letter explaining this apparent discrepancy. According to the institution, this type of record is typically completed in stages: sections A and B are completed upon finalization and approval of a staffing requirement; section C is completed after advertisement of the position and closing of the competition; and section D is completed after the interviews have been completed, the successful candidate identified, the job offered and accepted and rejection letters sent to all the other candidates. Based on the explanation provided by the institution, I am satisfied that the date reflects completion of one of the earlier stages of the competition process, and that the name of the qualified candidate was entered following completion of the interviews. However, it would appear to me that the date should normally only be entered after the entire form has been completed. The appellant believes that there is one additional record which would respond to his request and the institution claims that this record does not exist. In order to resolve this issue, I have asked a Compliance Investigator from this office to attend at the institution and conduct an independent search for this record. However, I have decided to issue this interim Order with respect to the records which have been identified, so as not to delay matters. The determination of the issues involving the remaining record will be the subject of my final Order in this appeal, and I remain seized of this matter for that purpose. ISSUES: The institution, the appellant and the affected person all agree that the records contain the personal information of the affected person, and I am satisfied that the information qualifies as "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . Accordingly, the only issues arising in this appeal are: A. Whether disclosure of the information contained in the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. B. Whether the provisions of either sections 21(2) or 21(4) of the Act are relevant in the circumstances of this appeal. C. With respect to any exempt records, whether there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 21 exemption. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A : Whether disclosure of the information contained in the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The institution claims that the personal information contained in the records meets the requirements of a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under either sections 21(3)(d) or (g) of the Act . These sections read as follows: A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy where the personal information, (d) relates to employment or educational history; (g) consists of personal recommendations or evaluations character references or personnel evaluations; Consistent with previous Orders (Orders 11, 97 and 99), it is my view that the information contained in Record 34 satisfies the requirements of the presumption contained in section 21(3)(d). I also find that the information contained in Records 39 and 40 satisfies the requirements of section 21(3)(d). Similarly, as in previous Orders (Orders 20, 97, 99, 196, and P-230), I find that the information contained in Records 4, 10, and 35-38 satisfies the requirements of the presumption
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
21(1)
-
21(2)
-
21(2)(a)
-
21(2)(d)
-
21(3)(d)
-
21(3)(f)
-
21(3)(g)
-
21(4)(a)
-
22(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 20, 1992
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order – Interim
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|