|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R INTRODUCTION : This is the Final Order in the matter of Appeal Number 880179, dealt with in part by Commissioner Sidney B. Linden in Interim Order 135, dated December 21, 1989 which provided as follows: 1. I order the head to sever the handwritten note from the top right hand corner of record 1 and release the balance of the record to the appellant within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order and to advise me of its release within five (5) days of the date of release. 2. I find that the exemption provided by subsection 13(1) of the Act would apply to the severed portion of record 1 and records 2 and 3. 3. I find that the exemption provided by section 19 of the Act would apply to records 4, 5, 6 and 7. 4. I order the head to reconsider the exercise of her discretion under subsection 49(a) with respect to the severed portion of record 1 and all of records 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, and to provide me with written notification of her decision regarding the exercise of discretion along with accompanying reasons within five (5) days of the date of the decision. I remain seized of this matter. 5. I order the head to release records 8, 9 and 10 to the appellant within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order and to advise me of the release of these records within five (5) days of the date of release. 6. I order the head to release records 11 and 12 to the appellant. I also order that the institution not release these records until 30 days following the date of issuance of this Order. This time delay is necessary in order to give the affected party sufficient opportunity to apply for judicial review of my decision before the records are actually released. Provided notice of an application for judicial review has not been served on the institution and/or me within this 30-day period, I order that the records be released within 35 days of the date of this Order. The institution is further ordered to advise me in writing within five (5) days of the date on which disclosure was made. 7. I remain seized of the issue related to the adequacy of the search for records conducted by the institution. For reasons which I will explain below, Items 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the Interim Order 135 are the matters which I will deal with in this Final Order. BACKGROUND: On March 21, 1988, the Ministry of Health (the "institution") received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , (the " Act ") for the following: ...all the information that you have in your files that concerns, pertains and/or make reference to me and any members of my entire family for the period commencing 1965 to the present. On March 24, 1988, the Senior Program Advisor for the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy office responded to the requester as follows: In our telephone conversation of March 22nd you further clarified this by stating your request is for any and all claims and/or complaints to OHIP from 1965 to present for yourself (practitioner number [number]) and claims for members of your family for services you have rendered to them. On May 17, 1988, the head granted access to some records and denied access, in whole or in part, to others citing subsections 49(a), 12(1)(b), 13(1), 14(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), 19 and 49(b) of the Act . On June 15, 1988, the requester appealed the decision of the head of the institution pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Act . This subsection gives a person who has made a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Appeals Officer assigned to the appeal obtained and reviewed the records at issue. While settlement of the appeal was not possible, the records at issue were reduced to twelve in number. Representations were received from both the institution and the appellant. Two affected persons received notice of the appeal and submitted representations. All of these representations were considered by Commissioner Sidney B. Linden in arriving at his decision in Interim Order 135. 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 . On January 16, 1990, this office received confirmation from the institution that the unsevered portion of Record 1 and Records 8, 9 and 10 had been released to the appellant, pursuant to Items 1 and 5 of Interim Order 135 and that Records 11 and 12 would be forwarded to the appellant in 10 days provided that notice of an application for judicial review was not served on the institution or this office within that time. On January 30, 1990, this office received written notification of the head's reconsideration of the exercise of her discretion together with the accompanying reasons. By letter dated June 28, 1990, the head provided further written representations on the exercise of her discretion. By letters dated April 9, 1990, the appellant and the institution were provided with a summary of the Compliance Investigator's findings with respect to the outstanding issue of the adequacy of the institution's search for records that responded to the appellant's request. Representations regarding the adequacy of the institution's search for records were received from the institution and the appellant. By letters dated June 5, 1990 and June 7, 1990, the institution and appellant, respectively, were advised that I would be deciding the remaining issues in this appeal and in addition to determining the adequacy of the institution's search for records, I would be making an independent finding with respect to the applicability of subsection 49(a) of the Act . It is my view that in order to make an independent finding under subsection 49(a) of the Act , I must also decide whether the exemptions provided by subsection 13(1) and section 19 would apply to the records for which Commissioner Linden previously found these sections would apply. In making my Order, I have considered the written representations of the institution and all representations of the appellant. RECORDS IN ISSUE : The records
|