|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-6
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880005
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ; an 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 that in Appeal No. 880014. 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 Act . Subsection 30(2) of the Act outlines 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 takes the position that the record may not be shipped to Ottawa for viewing because it is an original document, and shipping of an original creates a risk of damage or loss to the record. The head also indicates the institution does not have more than one copy of some of the material requested, and that where additional copies do exist they "...are necessary for the use of Ministry staff. In order to grant access in Ottawa... the Ministry must make photocopies of them." The head goes on to point out that the institution does not have an office in the Ottawa area, and, "(a)ccordingly, it is not reasonably practicable to provide an opportunity to examine the records in Ottawa". 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 reasons offered by the institution are that it "...does not release original material" for security reasons, and that any additional copies that do exist cannot be shipped to Ottawa because they are required for use in Toronto by staff of the institution. The head gives no details as to how the operations of the institution would be compromised if the record or copy thereof was sent to Ottawa for the short time it would take for the appellant to view it. Indeed, in the absence of any submissions by the head, I find it difficult to see how a record concerning the operation of an Act that was repealed several years ago could be so vital for current use by institution staff in Toronto. 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 that the security and integrity of the record will
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
30(2)
-
57(1)
-
57(1)(c)
-
57(1)(d)
-
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.
|