|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-123
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880110
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) of the Act , a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On November 20, 1987, the requester filed a written request with the Ministry of the Attorney General (the "institution") for "...reports on allegdly (sic) illegal acts committed by the RCMP in Ontario brought out by the Macdonald (sic) Commission and follow up actions, including prosecutions, or other actions, including rationales for dropping possible cases." 2. After extending the time limit in order to conduct further consultations, the institution wrote to the requester on May 2, 1988, advising him that access to the records was denied for the following reasons: a) subsection 13(1) as disclosure would reveal advice and recommendations of a public servant; b) subsection 21(1), 3(b)(d)(f)(g) and (h), as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy; c) subsection 14(1)(c) as disclosure would reveal investigative techniques currently in use or likely to be used in law enforcement; d) subsection 14(1)(d) as disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information in respect of a law enforcement matter; e) subsection 14(1)(g) as disclosure would reveal law enforcement intelligence information in respect of organizations or persons; f) subsection 14(2) as the record is a report prepared in the course of law enforcement; g) subsections 15(a) and (b) as disclosure could prejudice the conduct of intergovernmental relations by the Government of Ontario and the Ministry and reveal information received in confidence from another government or its agencies; h) subsection 22(a) as the information is currently available to the public. 3. By letter dated May 4, 1988, the requester wrote to me appealing the head's decision, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 4. The records were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer, and initial attempts were made to mediate a settlement between the parties. During mediation, the institution raised section 19, subsection 12(1)(e) and subsection 21(3)(e) as additional exemptions being relied on to deny access. 5. Settlement efforts were unsuccessful, as both parties retained their respective positions. 6. By letter dated October 18, 1988, I advised both the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of an Appeals Officer's Report, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrase those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. In this case, the Appeals Officer's Report also advised the appellant of the additional exemptions raised by the institution during the mediation stage. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. The Report is sent to all persons affected by the subject matter of the appeal, in this case the appellant and the institution. 7. By letter dated October 31, 1988, I wrote to both parties inviting them to provide me with written representations. I have received representations from both the institution and the appellant. 8. In addition to these written representations, I met with counsel for the institution in Toronto on January 5, 1989, and with the appellant in Ottawa on February 22, 1989, and received oral representations from each party on the issues under consideration in this appeal. The appellant also provided me with further written representations at our meeting. 9. I have considered all representations from both parties in making my Order. The appellant also requested that his name be used in association with this Order. I have no objection to the appellant using his name in any manner he wishes, but for the purposes of this Order I have decided to follow my usual practice of not referring to an appellant by name. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted at the outset. Subsection 1(a) provides the right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counterbalancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . This subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions, and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specific exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. The records at issue in this appeal consist of the following: Record #1 Case summaries concerning evidence given to the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the RCMP (the "McDonald Commission"); Record #2 Excerpts from a 2-part aide memoire; Record #3 A 24-page internal memorandum prepared by a solicitor for the institution; Record #4 The public statement which was read into the record by Crown counsel when a stay of proceedings was entered on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General in the Dowson case; and Record #5 A letter from the Ontario Attorney General to the federal Minister of Justice regarding the McDonald Commission. It should be noted that the records at issue in this appeal date back several years. They contain information which relates to events which took place in the early 1970s and came to light in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The passage of time, combined with what would appear to be somewha
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
15(a)
-
15(b)
-
22(a)
-
Section 19
-
Section 22
-
Section 23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 24, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|