|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1928
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000205-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal from a decision of the Ministry of the Attorney General (the "Ministry") under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester had sought access to records of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (the "OCL") (formerly the Office of the Official Guardian). He initially requested access to the OCL's "Policies and Procedures Manual and training manual", and "anything that pertains to how the office conducts their investigations and decision-making practices." The requester is a non-custodial parent whose children were represented by the OCL. The Ministry initially identified a number of records as responsive to the request and granted partial access to them. The Ministry withheld three records (Records 1, 2 and 3) on the basis of the exemptions at section 13 (advice to government) and section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act to withhold records. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry's decision to withhold the three records. During mediation of the appeal, the appellant advised the Mediator that he was seeking access to: Records showing interviewing techniques, procedures followed, and if they exist, training manuals used by OCL lawyers to determine a child's wishes in determining questions of custody and/or access [emphasis in original]. The Mediator advised the Ministry of the appellant's statement concerning his request and it conducted a further search. The Ministry identified an additional responsive record, a videotape and an accompanying guide (record 4). The Ministry issued a subsequent decision letter denying access to the guide under section 19, and to the videotape under section 21(1) (invasion of personal privacy). Mediation of the appeal was not successful. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry initially, setting out the facts and issues in this appeal. The Ministry returned detailed submissions. The Notice of Inquiry was then sent to the appellant, together with the non-confidential portions of the Ministry's representations. The appellant also submitted representations. In its representations, the Ministry took the position that due to the appellant's "narrowed request", the only record at issue is record 4, and the Ministry's representations focused on that record. Still, the Ministry maintained its initial position that records 1, 2 and 3 are exempt on the basis of sections 13 and 19, without providing supporting representations. In the circumstances, I decided to invite the Ministry to provide further representations with respect to these three records. It did so, but still maintains that records 1, 2 and 3 are not responsive to the appellant's "narrowed request". In the circumstances, I determined that it was not necessary for me to share the Ministry's additional representations with the appellant. DISCUSSION: SCOPE OF THE REQUEST The Ministry submits that "given the narrowed nature of the request", it is "only required to make representations on record 4" which it asserts "is the only record at issue": None of [records 1, 2 and 3] contain any information about how the OCL lawyers determine a child's wishes, and accordingly, are not the subject of the narrowed request that is at issue on this appeal. The appellant's position is that his request should be construed as covering all of records 1 to 4. He states: The request for information was narrowed because of the OCL avoidance tactics. My request was and still is for any and all information pertaining to the decision making process and interviewing techniques used by the OCL in determining their position on behalf of their child clients. The Ministry acknowledges that the original request was extremely broad and states that "as a result the [OCL] located all documents relevant to the manner in which cases are conducted by both lawyers and social workers." It initially located records 1, 2 and 3 as responsive to the request. From the materials before me, I note that the Mediator had discussions with the Ministry and the appellant in order to clarify the request. The appellant subsequently advised the Mediator that he was seeking "records showing interviewing techniques, procedures followed, and if they exist, training manuals used by OCL lawyers to determine a child's wishes in determining questions of custody and/or access." The Mediator provided the Ministry with this exact wording. In response, the Ministry carried out an additional search and located record 4. Mediation was not successful and the Mediator prepared, and shared with the Ministry and the appellant, a Report of Mediator (the Report). In the Report, the Mediator identified all four records as being at issue. The Mediator sent out a covering letter with the Report to both parties stating: The purpose of this Report is to provide the parties to an appeal with a record of the result of mediation and to provide the Adjudicator with information regarding records and issues that remain to be adjudicated. The Ministry and the appellant were invited to review the Report and to contact the Mediator by a specified date "if there are any errors or omissions." Neither party contacted the Mediator and the appeal proceeded to adjudication. In my view, records 1, 2 and 3 should remain at issue in this appeal. Although the appellant describes the revised wording of his request as "narrowed", this is not determinative of the issue, and there are no other indications to support the Ministry's contention that the appellant removed the three records from the scope of his request. In addition, the Ministry had an opportunity to object to the Mediator's description in the Report of the scope of the request, but failed to do so. Accordingly, I will consider the application of the claimed exemptions to all four records. PERSONAL INFORMATION Introduction The Ministry claims that the videotape portion of record 4 contains personal information which i
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Dora Nipp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 26, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|