|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-54
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880272
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On July 6, 1988, the Ministry of Health (the "institution") received the following request: "1. What is [a certain named physician's] OHIP registration #. 2. How much did [the certain named physician] receive in money from billings from the Min. of Health for the year 1987 to 1988 (fiscal). 3. Is [the certain named physician's] address still [a certain address in Burlington, Ont] or is it [a certain address in Mississauga, Ont]". 2. On August 5, 1988, the institution responded by indicating that "...your request for access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy Act... has been denied under the authority of Section 21 of the Act. The reason this provision applies to the records requested is because disclosure would constitute a violation of [the named physician's] privacy under the Act." 3. On August 30, 1988, the appellant wrote to me appealing the head's decision and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 4. After some discussion regarding the form of the request, the Appeals Officer assigned to this case was advised by the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") that the institution had two records in its possession which contained the information requested by the appellant; namely, the "Physicians' Billing Index" and the "OHIP Roster". The parties agreed to treat the request as a request for that portion of the institution's "Physicians' Billing Index" or "OHIP Roster" relating to the named physician. 5. Attempts to mediate this appeal were not successful, as both parties retained their respective positions. 6. On January 30, 1989, notice that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head was sent to the institution and the appellant. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrase those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. The Report is sent to all parties affected by the subject matter of the appeal. 7. On February 13, 1989, the parties were advised that I would be conducting the inquiry by way of written representations, and were asked to provide their submissions by February 22, 1989. 8. In its representations, the institution raised a new argument in support of its position. The institution claimed that section 44 of the Health Insurance Act is a confidentiality provision barring the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 pursuant to s.67 of the Act . 9. On March 3, 1989, the appellant was advised of the institution's additional claim and invited to make further representations in response. 10. By letter dated April 26, 1989 the appellant advised that he was withdrawing that part of his request relating to the named physician's address. 11. I have considered all representations in making my Order. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted at the outset. Subsection 1(a) provides a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . The subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. It should also be noted that section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record or part of the record falls within one of the specified exemptions of the Act lies upon the head. Where, as here, an institution purports to withhold records or information from disclosure pursuant to a confidentiality provision, the onus is on the institution to prove that the confidentiality provision in question operates to bar the application of the Act . The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether subsection 44(1) of the Health Insurance Act is a "confidentiality provision", barring the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 . B. If Issue A is answered in the affirmative, whether the relevant portions of the requested records fall within the scope of the confidentiality provision relied on. C. If either Issue A or B above is answered in the negative, whether the relevant portions of the requested records constitute "personal information" such that disclosure of this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21 of the Act . Before addressing these issues, I would like to comment on the apparent confusion experienced by the parties and the Appeals Officer in identifying the records at issue in this appeal. As noted in paragraph one, above, the appellant's original request was made in the form of three questions. While this format is acceptable for requesters seeking access to their own personal information under subsection 48(1) of the Act , questions are not appropriate when asking for access to general records or information about other persons under subsection 24(1). Subsection 24(1) requires a requester to "...provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record." If a request d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
24(1)
-
48(4)
-
67(2) and (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 27, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|