|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-116
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
890026
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Housing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Order 116 Appeal Number 890026 Ministry of Housing This letter constitutes my Order in your appeal of the decision by the Ministry of Housing (the "institution"), regarding your request for records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act "). On July 10, 1988, the institution received your request for access to the following information: All reports, full reports, summary reports, outlines, record of phone calls, investigation reports and notes, any notes handwritten or otherwise, and all internal correspondence and memos relating to, dealing with or touching upon the incident and resolution of the incident between myself and [a named individual] which occurred in the Central Regional Office of the Rent Review Hearing Board (RRHB) on July 21, 1988. Any such information in any form or place in the possession of D. Burnside, R. Ray, P. Chudha, the RRHB in general or the Ministry of Housing. Anything received from the Ministry of Housing, the Minister's office and all material generated and received by the appointed fact finder (D. Burnside) related to same. Any information held in electronic storage or recording devices related to same. On February 7, 1989, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator responded to your requests in the following manner: Access is granted to the entire file except the following. Access is denied to the names of the witnesses under section 21(1) of the Act. This provision applies because it would reveal personal information about identifiable individuals. Access is also denied to a memo and notes between David Burnside, legal counsel, Rent Review Hearings Board and the legal counsel at Crown Law Office, Civil, Ministry of the Attorney General under section 19 of the Act. This provision applies because it would reveal solicitor-client privilege. On February 16, 1989, you wrote to me appealing the institution's decision. In your letter of appeal you state that: Access was denied to a memo and notes between D. Burnside and the legal counsel at Crown Law Office, Civil, Ministry of the Attorney General under section 19 of the Act. I maintain that there is no solicitor-client relationship between these parties. I would be interested in knowing exactly what capacity Mr. Burnside was acting in regarding this matter... Further, I requested Mr. Burnside's handwritten notes or electronically recorded notes in regard to this matter. I did not receive any of this material... Further, I requested all correspondence between the Ministry of Housing, the Board and the Minister's office. This was not provided. On February 20, 1989, I gave notice of the appeal to you and the institution. As you know, as soon as your appeal was received in my office, an Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal, and attempt to mediate a settlement. You confirmed with the Appeals Officer at that time that you were not appealing the severances made to the record. The Appeals Officer obtained and reviewed the records at issue in this appeal. They consist of witness statements, fact-finding reports (draft and final), handwritten notes, briefing notes and memos relating to an incident between yourself and another individual in the workplace. During the mediation of this appeal, the institution provided you with additional records. You subsequently advised the Appeals Officer that you wished to appeal the severance of the names of witnesses from the record. As a result, a full resolution could not be achieved. Accordingly, an Appeals Officer's Report was prepared and sent to you and the institution on July 26, 1989, together with a Notice of Inquiry. You and the institution were asked to make representations to me concerning the subject matter of the appeal. I have received and considered representations from you and the institution in making my decision. The issues in this appeal are as follows: - the severing of the names of witnesses pursuant to section 21 of the Act ; - the exemption of a note written by David Burnside pursuant to section 19 of the Act ; and - whether the search for records conducted by the institution was adequate. You and the institution have been advised that this issue will not be dealt with in this Order. I therefore remain seized of this matter and will deal with it in a separate Order. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted. Subsection 1(a) provides the 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 . This 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. Section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specified exemptions of this Act lies upon the head. Prior to deciding whether the exemption to disclosure of personal information claimed by the institution applies, it is my responsibility to ensure that the information in question falls within the definition of "personal information" in subsection 2(1) of the Act . Further, I must determine whether this information relates to you, another individual or both. The relevant portion of subsection 2(1) reads as follows: 2.--(1) In this Act, personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, ... (h) the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual; In my view, the names of witnesses in conjunction with the information already disclosed to you i.e. witness statements and reports fall within the definition of personal information under subsection 2(1)(h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 14, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|