|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to a number of Freedom of Information files which the Ministry had previously opened to respond to earlier access requests made by the same requester. More specifically, the requester sought access to all general records found in the files, to the requester's personal information, and to all decisions made by a named Ministry employee. The requester identified those locations within the Ministry in which the search for these records should be conducted. He further indicated that the time frame for the request was from January 1, 1990 until June 30, 1992. The Ministry located records responsive to the request but denied access in full based on the exemption contained in section 14(2)(a) of the Act . The Ministry also relied on section 52(9) of the Act as a further ground for resisting disclosure. The requester appealed the denial of access, and raised the application of section 63(2) of the Act with respect to records in the custody or control of the Health Disciplines Board. The appellant also maintained that the Ministry did not provide him with a proper decision letter in the manner prescribed in Order 81, and requested that the Ministry provide a list of the records to which access was denied along with a general description of each document. Mediation was not successful, and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Ministry's decision was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry states that it provided the appellant with access in full to a number of records and access in part to two additional records. The Ministry also indicated that it had withdrawn its claim for exemption based on section 14(2)(a) of the Act . In his representations, the appellant stated that he was abandoning his assertion that section 63(2) applied to any of the records. He also clarified that he was not seeking access to any records in the files that were created while his previous files were in the inquiry stage of the appeals process. THE RECORDS: The records remaining at issue in this appeal as identified by the Ministry in the index it provided to this office with its representations are Records 9 and 12 (disclosed in part), and Records 13, 16, 17, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 63-66, 112-116, 118, 122, 127, 135, 150-155, 161-166, 177-182, 191-196, and 201-206 to which access was denied in full. As I have already indicated, during the period of time covered by the present appeal, the Ministry had opened several Freedom of Information files to process access requests made by the same individual who is the appellant in this case. In many instances, the appellant was satisfied by the decision of the Ministry made in response to the request and did not appeal the decision of the Ministry to the Commissioner's office. The appellant has received full access to the documents in these files. In the other 12 files which are at issue, this individual had appealed the decision of the Ministry to the Commissioner's office. The Ministry and the Commissioner's office both opened an appeal file to deal with each of these cases. An Appeals Officer was then assigned to attempt to resolve the appeal by way of a mediated settlement between the appellant and the Ministry. During the mediation stage of these appeals, the Appeals Officer and employees of the Ministry corresponded on various issues involving the appeal. In addition, Ministry personnel authored internal memoranda, notes etc. concerning these appeals. It is these documents that were generated during this mediation stage of the appeals process that constitute the records at issue in this appeal. These records may be characterized as follows: (1) Internal Ministry Documentation (Records 13, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 112, 114, 115, 135, 136, 151, 152, 162, 163, 178, 179, 192, 193, 202, 203, and the severed portions of Records 9 and 12). (2) Correspondence from the Ministry to the Commissioner's office (Records 16, 17, 44, 63, 113, 122, 127, 154, 165, 181, 195, and 205). (3) Correspondence from the Commissioner's office to the Ministry (Records 41, 64, 116, 153, 155, 161, 164, 166, 177, 180, 191, 194, 196, 201, 204, and 206). PRELIMINARY ISSUE: The appellant is of the view that the Ministry's decision letter is inadequate in that it failed to provide him with an index of the records. He asserts that the decision letter should have included a description of the records to which access was being denied in whole or in part, the exemptions applied to each record, and an explanation for the application of each exemption to each record. He refers to Order 81 to support this proposition. In its representations, the Ministry took the position that "notwithstanding Order 81, the original decision letter was proper and appropriate, given the circumstances surrounding the request." The issue that I must determine is what type of decision the Ministry should have issued in response to the appellant's request. When an institution receives an access request for a large volume of records or for records that are unduly expensive to produce, it has three options. First, it may issue a final decision and, if applicable, a final fee estimate. Second, it may extend the 30-day time limit for making an access decision for a period that is reasonable in the circumstances. Third, it may provide the requester with an interim decision and fee estimate. Order 81, referred to in the representations of the appellant, established the steps that an institution should take when exercising the third option - the issuance of an interim decision letter and fee estimate. However, this option is only available to institutions in limited circumstances where the records responsive to the request are unduly expensive to produce for review by the head prior to the issuance of a final decision. In my view, the request in the present appeal did not give rise to a situation in which the Ministry could choose to issue a decision of the nature described in Order 81. It was not a case in which the record was unduly expensive to produce for inspection by the head of the institution in making a decision. Rather, it is my opinion that the Ministry correctly processed this request, in the normal course, by issuing a final decision. The final decision was issued pursuant to sect
|