|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-92
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880193 and 880194
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Labour
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R These appeals were 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 personal information under subsection 48(1) or a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1), a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of these appeals and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On April 4, 1988, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Labour (the "institution") seeking access to records containing the following information: A copy of the investigation and all correspondence with the Ministry of Labour between May 1986 and the present time, when my employer York Condinum (sic) 241 and Andrejs Management and a company called Pac Productions. To see the authority that one Patrick O'Reilly, R. Frith and R. Ryan from the Industrial Health and Safety Branch of your Ministry claim to have - to amend legislation - to decide by force who can and who cannot live in the Province of Ontario - to supercede Federal law (Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1B) (sic) (Constitution Act s.62(b) (sic)) - to place their personal friends above law, Patrick O'Reilly's friend [named individual] I have a letter dated 19/03/87 from W. Wrye, Minister of Labour, pertaining knowledge of above events. 2. The institution treated this letter as two separate requests; one for personal information about the requester contained in the investigation file (Appeal Number 880194), and the second for all other general records in the file (Appeal Number 880193). On June 16, 1988, the institution wrote to the requester granting partial access to the requested records. Some of the 37 records were disclosed in their entirety, some were disclosed with severances, and others were withheld. 3. In separate letters responding to the request, the head gave reasons for denying access to the requester's personal information, and to certain general records in the investigation file. Records containing personal information were withheld pursuant to sections 67 and 13 of the Act . The head stated that: [T]he record to which access is denied contains material or information acquired under investigation pursuant to [section 34 of] the Occupational Health and Safety Act . This provision currently prevails pursuant to section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , 1987 . In addition, access is also denied pursuant to section 13 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 . This provision applies since the records contain advice and recommendations of staff members of the Occupational Health and Safety Division. Section 67 of the Act was cited by the head as the basis for denying access to the general records. 4. On June 23, 1988, the requester wrote to me appealing the head's decisions, and I gave notice of the appeals to the institution. In his letter the appellant raised the following concerns: Two phone calls not documented (July + Aug. '86). The analyst's report of what the chemicals were from the samples you took (containers were already open and mislabelled). The authority of your employees to place their own personal friends above law and amend legislation. The authority of your Ministry to supercede Federal legislation (Constitution Act #6 - 2B - #7 - #11B) (Canadian Bill of Rights - #1A - #2 - #2B). 5. The records at issue were received and reviewed by an Appeals Officer from my staff. Efforts were made by the Appeals Officer to settle the issues through mediation. As a result of these efforts the institution agreed to release two additional letters addressed to the appellant, and one letter from a third party to the institution which contained information about the appellant. 6. No records provided by the institution responded to the portion of the appellant's request dealing with the authority of the named institution officials. In response to the Appeals Officer's request for comments on this issue, the institution provided the following statement in a letter dated January 27, 1989: The Ministry's position is that it is preposterous to suggest that these gentlemen claim any such authority and in our view, these allegations do not merit a response A copy of the institution's letter was sent to the appellant. The institution's statement did not satisfy the appellant, and he informed the Appeals Officer that he wished this and the other unresolved issues in the two appeals to be decided by the Commissioner. 7. On May 11, 1989, I sent notice to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decisions of the head. 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 appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeals 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 appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. 8. By letters dated May 24, 1989, I invited both parties to submit written representations to me on the issues arising in the appeals. 9. On July 10, 1989, the appellant informed the Appeals Officer that he had not received the Appeals Officer's Report, or the letter inviting representations. Accordingly, he was sent a second copy of the Report and was granted a time extension for making representations. 10. Submissions were received from the institution. I have taken these representations and the concerns raised by the appellant in his June 23, 1988 appeal letter into account in reaching my decision. 11. On June 16, 1989, following the submission of representations, the institution decided to release nine additional records to the appellant, leaving a total of 12 records to be disposed of by my Order. The issues arising in these appeals are as follows: A. Whether any of the requested records fall within the discretionary exemption p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
13(2)
-
13(2)(a)
-
54(2)
-
54(3)
-
59(b)
-
67(2) and (3)
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 21, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|