|
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, as amended (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows:
1. By letter dated June 29, 1989, a request was made to the Ministry of Correctional Services (the "institution") for the following information:
Provide any 1988, 1989 briefing notes/analysis of media reports or departmental analysis/ review of public inspection panel reports for this [sic] above facility (Ottawa Carleton Regional Detention Centre) as they relate to perceived or actual crowding in the facility. Please provide informally the 1988, 1989 public inspection panel reports for this facility (you have provided me with 1986-87 panel reports in the past).
2. On August 10, 1989, the institution wrote to the requester and disclosed the public inspection panel reports he had requested. Two other records were withheld from disclosure in their entirety. These records are:
A two page briefing response, which was prepared for the Minister of Correctional Services in anticipation of questions relating to the death of an inmate at the named facility, withheld pursuant to subsections 13(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(f), 14(2)(a), 14(2)(d) and 21(1) of the Act.
A two page briefing note on the topic of the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre - Young Offender Unit withheld pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act.
3. On August 16, 1989, the requester appealed the head's decision to this office. Notice of the appeal was given to the appellant and the institution.
4. The two records at issue in this appeal were obtained and examined by the Appeals Officer assigned to the case and efforts were made to mediate a settlement.
5. During the course of mediation, the institution amended its reasons for refusing access to the briefing note by advising that it was now also relying on subsection 12(1) of the Act to deny access to the appellant.
...
|