|
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) the right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The facts of this case and procedures employed in making this order are as follows:
1. On February 14, 1989, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Labour (the "institution") and requested access to "All Personal Information from the Employment Standards Branch."
2. The institution responded on April 20, 1989 and provided partial access to the requested records. Three records were disclosed subject to severances pursuant to subsections 13(1) and 49(b) of the Act. A fourth record was withheld from disclosure in its entirety pursuant to subsection 14(2)(a) of the Act.
3. On April 25, 1989, the requester wrote to me appealing the institution's decision and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution on May 12, 1989.
4. The Appeals Officer assigned to this case obtained and reviewed the four records which had been withheld from disclosure. During the course of the Appeals Officer's investigation, the appellant advised that he was not appealing the institution's decision under subsection 49(b) to sever another individual's personal information from the records in question. As the institution maintained its position respecting the other exemptions cited by it to deny access, a mediated settlement could not be achieved.
5. By letters dated July 28, 1989, I notified the institution and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. In accordance with my usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is 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 appeared to the Appeals Officer, or any other parties, to be relevant to the appeal. Those sections of the Act paraphrased in the report include the exemption sections cited by the head in refusing access to a record or a part thereof. The report indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report.
6. Representations were received from the institution and I have considered them in making my Order.
7. In its representations, the institution indicated that two of the records in question could be disclosed in their entirety to the appellant. These two records were provided to the appellant on August 25, 1989 and, accordingly, this Order concerns only the two remaining records at issue which are:
- Memo from J. Bell to K. Armstrong, dated December 10, 1986. The second page of the two-page memo was severed pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act;
- Officer's Narrative Report, undated, exempted in its entirety pursuant to subsection 14(2)(a) of the Act.
|