|
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) or a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head of an institution to the Commissioner.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows:
1. On February 8, 1990, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Correctional Services (the "institution") and made the following request:
I am requesting statements by residents [names of three individuals] about an incident that took place at Camp Dufferin on March 6, 1989. This information should be found on my personnel file.
2. On February 20, 1990, the institution responded to the request in the following manner:
Please be advised that access to the personal information of Camp Dufferin was denied in response to your identical request of April 13, 1989 (ref. P89-0674), pursuant to subsections 14(2)(d), 49(b) and 49(e) of the Act. This decision is a reiteration of that made on May 15, 1989. You were informed of your right to appeal within 30 days of that decision on May 15, 1989.
3. On February 28, 1990, the appellant appealed the decision of the head. Notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant.
4. The Appeals Officer assigned to the case obtained and reviewed the records at issue in this appeal. On March 8, 1990, the institution wrote to the Appeals Officer as follows:
This ministry continues to be of the opinion that [name of appellant] forfeited his right to appeal this decision during the month of June 1989.
On March 19, 1990, former Information and Privacy Commissioner Sidney B. Linden issued Order 155 in which he intimated that, should the time limit for filing an appeal expire, a new request could be made by a requester for the same information as had previously been requested, and the decision resulting from the new request could be appealed. The institution informed the Appeals Officer that in view of this Order, it had decided not to contest the appellant's right to appeal.
...
|