|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-11
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Skills Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal to the Commissioner any decision of a head under the Act.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows:
| 1. |
On January 29, 1988, the Ministry of Skills Development (the "institution") received a request from the appellant for access to Job Competition File SD4096 including applications and resumes of interviewed candidates, criteria and rating sheets, interview schedules and correspondence, and the qualifications of the successful candidate. |
| 2. |
On February 23, 1988, the institution granted partial access to this file and sent the appellant copies of: |
|
(a) |
Screening criteria and rating sheets with areas pertaining to the Appellant and the successful candidate highlighted to provide the qualifications of the successful candidate; |
|
(b) |
First and second interview schedules with all names but that of the successful candidate severed pursuant to subsection 21(1)(f) of the Act; |
|
(c) |
Selection criteria, questions and ranking for first interview with severance of all names except that of the successful candidate pursuant to subsection 21(1)(f) of the Act; |
|
(d) |
The letter to the unsuccessful candidates with names severed pursuant to subsection 21(1)(f) of the Act; |
|
(e) |
The letter to the successful candidate with address severed pursuant to subsection 21(1)(f) of the Act. |
|
Access to applications and resumes of all candidates was denied pursuant to subsections 21(1)(f) and 21(3)(d) of the Act. |
| 3. |
On February 26, 1988, the requester appealed the denial of access to the applications and resumes of other candidates (the "records"). I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. |
| 4. |
Between March 2, 1988 and May 2, 1988, efforts were made by an Appeals Officer to settle the appeal. The appellant clarified the reasons for his request, explaining that he did not seek to discover the identity of other candidates, but only the qualifications of those interviewed in order to determine how their qualifications were better than his, and thus why he did not get an interview. The institution offered to review with the Appellant his application if that might assist him in future job competitions; however, the institution maintained the position that release of the records was an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The appellant declined the institution's offer, and settlement was not effected. |
| 5. |
On May 2, 1988, I sent notice to the institution and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. |
| 6. |
Written submissions were received from the appellant and the institution by June 10, 1988. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
2(1) personal information
-
21(3)(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 03, 1988
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|