IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

P-759

Document		P-759


File #		P-9400187


Institution/HIC		Ministry of the Attorney General


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester asked the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) to provide her with copies of all documents relating to the appointment of a named individual as a Judge of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division). This appointment is now a matter of public record. The Ministry identified a total of 54 pages of documents that were responsive to the request and granted access to three of these pages in full. The Ministry decided, however, to withhold the remaining 51 pages in their entirety under one or more of the following exemptions contained in the Act : Cabinet records - section 12 Advice or recommendations - section 13 Invasion of privacy - section 21 The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. The requester also took the position that there was a compelling public interest in the release of this information under section 23 of the Act . A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant, the Ministry and the Judge. Representations were received from all parties. In its submissions, the Ministry indicated that it had disclosed pages 35 and 53 of the record to the appellant and that it was no longer relying on the advice or recommendations exemption with respect to any of the other pages at issue. PRELIMINARY MATTER: Following a review of the record identified by the Ministry in its decision letter, and having regard to the nature of the appellant's request, I formed the preliminary impression that pages 36 to 47 and portions of pages 1A and 16 to 18 of the record were not responsive to the request. These pages either relate to administrative matters which were addressed following the appointment of the Judge or with the candidacy of other named individuals. On this basis, I asked the Appeals Officer assigned to this case to inform the appellant that this issue had arisen and to solicit her comments on this subject. The appellant stated that she had no submissions to make. Having again reviewed these documents, my conclusion is that the information in question falls outside the scope of the request. Consequently, I will not consider this information further in this appeal. The contents of the 38 pages which remain at issue are described more fully in Appendix "A" which is attached to this order. It should be noted that pages 19 to 31 are duplicates of pages 3 to 15. My decision respecting pages 3 to 15 will also apply to their duplicates. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual including information relating to the education or employment history of the individual. In my view, all of the pages at issue contain information that qualifies as the personal information of the named Judge. The record does not contain any personal information about the appellant. Section 21(1) of the Act is a mandatory exemption which prohibits the disclosure of personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, one of which is found in section 21(1)(f) of the Act . This section provides that a government institution must refuse to release the personal information of another individual except if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether the disclosure of personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 21(3) lists the types of information whose disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of this sort. The only way in which a section 21(3) presumption may be overcome is if the personal information in question falls within section 21(4) of the Act or where a finding is made under section 23 of the Act that there exists a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record in which the personal information is contained, which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 21 exemption. In its representations, the Ministry relies on the following presumptions against disclosure to deny access to the record: The information relates to employment or educational history - section 21(3)(d) The information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, or personnel evaluations - section 21(3)(g) The information pertains to origins, beliefs and associations - section 21(3)(h) The Ministry also submits that the following considerations in section 21(2) of the Act weigh in favour of protecting the privacy interests of the Judge: The information is highly sensitive - section 21(2)(f) The information was supplied in confidence - section 21(2)(h) Based on a careful review of the evidence before me, I have made the following findings: 1. The information found in page 1A of the record, which indicates that the Judge was a candidate for judicial appointment, does not constitute his employment history for the purposes of section 21(3)(d) of the Act . Since this appointment is a matter of public record, I order that this information be disclosed to the appellant. 2. The information contained in pages 1 through 15 of the record, which includes the Judge's resume, the application form and various biographical materials, relates to his employment and educational history and, thus, falls within the section 21(3)(d) presumption against the disclosure of personal information. 3. In order for the information found on pages 16 to 18 to fall into the category of a personal evaluation for the purposes of the section 21(3)(g) presumption, such information must constitute an assessment made according to measurable standards (Order P-470). Based on this interpretation, I conclude that the information found on these three pages (which contains advice from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) to the Attorney General on the selection of judicial candidates) does not constitute a personal evaluation for the purposes of the Act . I also find that these pages do not comprise a personal recommendation or personnel evaluation under section 21(3)(g). Finally, t


Legislation		FIPPA 21(2) 21(2)(f) 21(2)(h) 21(3) 21(3)(d) 21(3)(g) 21(3)(h) 21(4)


Subject Index		Courts of Justice Act Judicial Appointment Record


Signed by		Irwin Glasberg


Published		Sep 20, 1994


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu