|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL The Ministry of Correctional Services (formerly the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services) (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to "... all records, logs, notes, forms, etc. including medical records by attending physicians and/or nurses" pertaining to the requester during his incarceration at a named detention centre. The Ministry located 59 pages of responsive records, consisting of 11 pages of the requester's medical file, and 48 pages of detention centre records. Included in this latter group were a memorandum, a handwritten note, client profiles, property records, photographs, two copies of a remand warrant, "behaviour while confined" records, two copies of an "accident/injury report", occurrence reports, a "misconduct report" and a "use of force report". The Ministry granted access in full to the requester's medical file, the remand warrant, the handwritten note and one page of the property record; partial access to the memorandum, the client profiles, the photographs, the "behaviour while confined" records and the "accident/injury report"; and denied access in full to the remaining records. The exemption claims relied on by the Ministry were sections 14(1)(d), (e), (i), (k) and (l), 14(2)(a) and (d), 21(1) and 49(a), (b) and (e) of the Act . The Ministry identified the "presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy" in sections 21(3)(a), (b) and (d) and the factors listed under sections 21(2)(e), (f) and (h) in support of the sections 21(1) and 48(b) exemption claims. The Ministry also located 18 pages of Toronto Police Services Board records. This part of the request was transferred to the Toronto Police Services Board pursuant to section 25 of the Act , and these records are not at issue in this appeal. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry's decision. He also asked for clearer copies of the photographs. A number of developments transpired during mediation: The Ministry issued a revised decision with respect to the occurrence reports, the "misconduct report" and the "use of force report", which had been withheld in their entirety. The Ministry claimed that, because the appellant commenced civil proceedings involving the Ministry after the request was made, these records fall outside the scope of the Act pursuant to sections 65(6)1 and 3. Although the Ministry withdrew the exemptions previously cited for these records, I decided to keep these exemption claims within the scope of this inquiry in the event that I find sections 65(6)1 and/or 3 do not apply. The appellant suggested that further responsive records should exist, specifically medical records and segregation logs for October 20 and 21, 1998. The Ministry conducted a further search and located additional records. The Ministry advised the appellant that Records 13 and 14 ("behaviour while confined" records) were double-sided, and provided partial access to the information contained on the back of these records (Records 13A and 14A). The rest of the information was denied on the basis of sections 14(1)(e) and 49(a) of the Act . The Ministry advised the appellant that it had been unable to locate any segregation logs for October 20 and 21, 1998 which involved the appellant. However, the Ministry did locate a copy of the relevant unit log book entries and provided the appellant with partial access. Sections 14(1)(e), (j) and (k), 21(1) and 49(a) and (b) of the Act were claimed as the basis for denying access to the rest of these records. The Ministry also indicated that some other information contained in these records, such as inmate unit counts and patrol times, had been severed because it was not responsive to the request. The appellant did not agree with the exemptions claimed by the Ministry or that the severed information was not responsive, and continued to maintain the additional responsive records should exist. The appellant claimed that the Ministry altered the date of the photographs and some of the other records. The Mediator assigned to the appeal advised the appellant that he could submit a request to correct his personal information, in accordance with section 47(2) of the Act . The appellant stated that he wished this issue to be considered in this inquiry, and that the altered dates was the basis for his belief that more responsive records should exist. The appellant asked to obtain colour photographs in place of the black-and-white ones previously provided by the Ministry. The Ministry complied with this request, citing the same exemptions previously claimed for the severed notations on the black-and-white photographs. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry and the appellant, and received written representations from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry withdrew the sections 14(1)(d), (i), (l), 14(2)(d) and 49(e) exemption claims. The Ministry also made no representations on the application of section 14(2)(a), thereby failing to discharge its onus for establishing the requirements of this section. I find that all of these exemption claims are no longer at issue in this appeal. Because sections 14(1)(l) and 14(2)(d) were the only exemptions claimed for the withheld portions of Records 3, 4 and 5, they should be disclosed to the appellant in their entirety. THE RECORDS: The following records or parts of records remain at issue in this appeal: Pages 18-48, consisting of occurrence reports, "misconduct report" and "use of force report" - excluded from the Act under sections 65(6)1 and 3 and, in the alternative, exempted in whole under sections 14(1)(e) and (k), 21(1) and 49(a) and (b). Pages 1, 7 and 9-16, consisting of a memorandum to file, photographs, property records, "behaviour while confined" records and "accident/injury report" - exempted in part pursuant to sections 14(1)(e) and (l), 21(1) and 49(a) and (b). The only undisclosed parts of these records consist of the names and/or signatures of Correctional Officers. Pages 49-58, consisting of unit log book entries - exempted in part pursuant to sections 14(1)(e), (j) and (k), 21(1) and 49(a) and (b). The Ministry also claims that some of the information contained in these records is not responsive to the request. PRELIMINARY MATTER : RESPONSIVENESS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE UNIT LOG BOOKS (RECORDS 49-58) The Ministry claims that references contained in the unit log books that relate to activities of other inmates and to security-related activities such as patrol times that do not involve the appellant are not responsive to the request. The appellant's request is worded as follows: Please accept this request/application under [the Act ], for the immediate release of all records, logs, notes, forms etc., pertaining to [the appellant]. It is clear that the appellant's request is restricted to records containing his own personal information. I accept the Ministry's position that entries not related to the appellant which happen to be included in the same log books as entries which do relate to him are not responsive to the request and should not be disclosed. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION The Ministr
|