|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880014
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
order deals only with the issues that arise in the context of this appeal, that is: A. Whether the head's decision to deny an opportunity to examine the record in Ottawa was in accordance with the terms of the Act; B. Whether the amount of the fees charged in this case was in accordance with the terms of the Act ; and C. Whether the head's decision not to waive fees was in accordance with the terms of the Act . This is a companion order to Appeal No. 880005. Both appeals involve the same appellant and deal with similar issues. ISSUE A: Whether the head's decision to deny an opportunity to examine the record in Ottawa was in accordance with the terms of the Act . Subsection 30(2) of the Act governs the method of access to records. The subsection reads as follows: "Where a person requests the opportunity to examine a record or a part thereof and it is reasonably practicable to give the person that opportunity, the head shall allow the person to examine the record or part thereof in accordance with the regulations". (Emphasis added) The head's position is that the documents could not be sent to Ottawa because: "It is not practical for the ministry to transmit source documents throughout the province because their security and survivability cannot be guaranteed. To do so would be inconsistent with good records management and business practices". The head also indicated that to grant access to the record in Ottawa the institution would be required to produce a copy of the record, because one does not currently exist. This would result in copying charges to the appellant. The appellant submits that he should have the right to view the record in Ottawa before deciding what information he requires to have copied. He argues that: "Either you can view documents or you lose a basic user approach to FOI. The number of copies made of most records makes a farce of the original copy concept... Photocopying fees at the previewing stage invites abuse and arbitrary administration". Subsection 30(2) does not specifically require an institution to provide requesters with an opportunity to view the record at the location of their choice in the province. Whether or not a requester's preferred location for viewing is acceptable is based on an assessment of whether or not it is "reasonably practicable" in the circumstances of a particular case. In this appeal, I must determine whether or not it is reasonably practicable for the institution to ship the record to Ottawa. In keeping with the overall principles of the Act , I believe it is the responsibility of a head to demonstrate that the means of viewing suggested by a requester is not reasonably practicable. I am generally sympathetic with the position taken by the appellant in this case. The head, while no doubt genuinely attempting to discharge his responsibility under the Act, seems to be unduly cautious about what appears to be a reasonable request by the appellant for an opportunity to view a record where he resides which will involve little cost to the institution when balanced against the substantial inconvenience or cost to the appellant if this opportunity is denied. The sole reason offered by the head in his submission is that the security and survivability of the record cannot be guaranteed if it is shipped from Oshawa to Ottawa. He gives no indication that the record must remain in Oshawa for active use, or that the operations of the institution would be compromised if the record was sent to Ottawa for the short time it would take for the appellant to view it. There is also no indication in the head's submission of undue inconvenience or unreasonable expense in shipping the record to Ottawa. As far as security of the record is concerned, I agree with the importance identified by the head. The security and integrity of the record will always be of paramount importance in determining whether or not a record should leave the Ministry offices. This is particularly true when no copies of a record exist or when it is necessary to view the original of the record. Adequate security provisions must exist from the time the record leaves the institution's offices until it is returned after viewing. In the circumstance of this appeal, I find that the head has not established that it would not be reasonably practicable to ship the record in question to Ottawa for viewing by the appellant. The appellant has asked to see the record but has not indicated he needs to see the original of the record. I am confident that methods exist to ensure secure transportation between Oshawa and Ottawa, and that adequate arrangements can be made for viewing the record in offices of the Ontario Government in Ottawa. The institution has
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
30(2)
-
57(1)
-
57(1)(c)
-
57(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 18, 1988
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|