|
The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the complete contents of a specified file with the Official Guardian as well as any records created by a named individual or his staff in the Official Guardian's office which mention the requester. The request went on to exclude any correspondence with the requester or his counsel and any records which pertain solely to the children of his first marriage. The Official Guardian, now known as the Children's Lawyer, was appointed by an Order of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) to represent the interests of the requester's six year old son in a custody and access proceeding involving the requester and his second wife. As is the practice in such proceedings, counsel for the child was selected from a panel of lawyers and is acting as agent for the Children's Lawyer.
The Ministry located over 1000 pages of responsive records and granted access to 709 pages in their entirety, as well as portions of two other pages. The Ministry denied access to the remaining records relying on the following exemptions contained in the Act:
advice or recommendations - section 13(1)
solicitor-client privilege - section 19
invasion of privacy - sections 21 and 49(b)
discretion to refuse requester's own information - section 49(a)
The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access and submitted that the decision letter provided to him was deficient in that it failed to delineate which records were not being disclosed and the statutory justification for doing so. The appellant also expressed his concern that the individual who made the decision to deny access is biased against him. Finally, the appellant argues that additional records responsive to his request exist.
A Notice of Inquiry was sent by the Appeals Officer to the appellant, the Ministry and to seven individuals whose rights may be affected by the disclosure of the information contained in the records. Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant and four of the affected persons, all of whom consented to the disclosure of their personal information to the appellant.
|