|
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 "[T]he O.P.P. report into allegations of illegal actions by Metro Toronto Police and the RCMP in the early seventies concerning the break-in at the Toronto offices of the then Praxis Corporation, a research organization." 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 21(1),(3)(b), d, f, g and h, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy; b) subsection 14(1)d and 14(1)g as disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information in respect of a law enforcement matter and reveal law enforcement intelligence information respecting organizations or persons; c) subsections 14(2)a as the record is a report prepared in the course of law enforcement; d) 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 attempts were made to mediate a settlement between the parties. During mediation the institution raised subsections 13(1), 14(1)(c), 14(1)(e), 15(a) and 15(b) 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 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. On 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 and have considered them in making my Order. 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 specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. The records at issue in this appeal consist of the following: Record #1 A report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police concerning Praxis Corporation; Record #2 The text of a speech made by the Solicitor General of Canada to the House of Commons in October 1977 (and covering memorandum); Record #3 Excerpts from the RCMP regulations manual and the Report of the Royal Commission on Security; and Record #4 The transcript of an interview conducted by the OPP with an RCMP officer concerning the availability of RCMP reports. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsections 14(1)(c), (d), (e), (g) or 14(2)(a) of the Act . B. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsections 15(a) or (b) of the Act . C. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 22(a) of the Act . D. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act . E. Whether any of the records at issue are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Act . F. If any of Issues A, B, C, D or E are answered in the affirmative, whether any exempt records can reasonably be severed, under subsection 10(2) of the Act , without disclosing the information that falls under an exemption. G. Whether there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records exempted under sections 13, 15 and 21 that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemptions, as provided by section 23 of the Act . Before dealing with the substantive issues raised in this appeal, I want to touch briefly on an objection raised by the appellant regarding the institution's introduction of additional exemptions during the course of the appeal. I have dealt with this matter in previous Orders and remain of the view that, in appropriate circumstances and with sufficient notice to the appellant, the Act does not preclude an institution from raising additional exemptions following the initiation of an appeal. In this case, the appellant was provided wit
|