|
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 under the Act to the 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. On January 13, 1989, the Ministry of Government Services (the "institution") received a request for access to all documentation relating to a sexual harassment complaint against the requester.
2. On February 10, 1989, the Deputy Minister for the institution wrote to the requester advising that:
...access is granted to all documents with the following exceptions: written notes of interviews by C. Legedza and J. Corbet; note to file from J. Corbet dated December 1, 1988; pages 2 to 8 of the Complaint Investigation Report dated December 20, 1988.
Access is denied pursuant to sections 14, 21, and 49 of the Act because the records contain personal information about other individuals and in addition could interfere with an internal investigation.
3. By letter dated March 1, 1989, the requester appealed the decision of the head to this office. In his letter of appeal he stated that although the investigators indicated that there was no justification for a finding of sexual harassment, they recommended that he should be disciplined for unprofessional conduct.
The requester indicated that his Director instructed him to attend a meeting to answer to the charges of the unprofessional conduct. He states that at the meeting, he was refused proof that he had acted in an unprofessional manner and that he was advised to apply under the Act for any information.
In the requester's view, the information disclosed to him by the institution in response to his request does not support a finding of unprofessional conduct on his part.
4. Notice of the appeal was given to the appellant and the institution on March 8, 1989.
5. The records at issue in this appeal, which were obtained and reviewed by the Appeals Officer, consist of 26 pages of handwritten interview notes taken by two investigators and pages 2 through 8 of the Complaint Investigation Report which summarizes the handwritten interview notes. These records resulted from the investigators' interviews with the person who made the allegations against the appellant and two witnesses who were present during the alleged incident of sexual harassment. The identities of those interviewed are known to the appellant since they were contained in records already disclosed to him.
The institution had previously indicated that the "note to file", which records the contents of a telephone call from one of the persons interviewed to one of the investigators, was exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 14, 21 and 49 of the Act. However, in its representations, the institution stated that the note was not relevant to the request. I have reviewed this "note" and concur that it is unrelated to the request and therefore not at issue in this appeal.
...
|