On February 23, 1990, the Ministry of Skills Development (the "institution") received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the "Act"). The requester was seeking access to a list of the names and addresses of hairstyling apprentices registered with the institution.
On March 16, 1990, the institution indicated that access to the names of the apprentices was available, but that access to their addresses was denied under section 21 of the Act. The institution provided the requester with a fee estimate of $800.00 and requested a deposit equal to one half of that amount before it would proceed to grant access to the names.
On November 7, 1990, the requester submitted a second request for the same information to the institution. This request was accompanied by several new arguments intended to persuade the institution to disclose the requested information. In its response, the institution stated that its position was the same as set out in its letter of March 16, 1990, and rejected the requester's arguments as to why all of the requested information should be disclosed.
On November 27, 1990, the requester appealed the head's decision to continue to deny access to the addresses. Notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant. An Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal and attempt to mediate a settlement. The Appeals Officer obtained a portion of the record, which consisted of a computer printout showing the names and home addresses of individuals enroled in the hairdressers' apprenticeship program. The entire record consists of some 1250 names and addresses. Because the information in the portion of the record obtained by the Appeals Officer is identical in nature to that contained in the balance of the record, it is not necessary for me to review the entire record in order to properly decide the issues in this appeal.