|
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 personal information under subsection 48(1) of the Act , a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 17, 1988, the Ministry of the Attorney General (the "institution") received a letter containing the following request: "Par la présente, je demande à recevoir par la poste copie complète de tous les documents, de quelque nature que ce soit, qui se rapportent et font suite aux échanges qui se sont produits en 1987 et 1988 entre votre ministère et le département des services sociaux du comté de Northumberland au sujet de ma personne. Je veux savoir exactement ce qui fut transmis par ce département à votre ministére et ce qui fut transmis par votre ministère à ce départment, en plus de savoir ce qui fut fait par vous suite à cet échange. Je n'ai aucune idée dans quelle banque de renseignement vous pouvez conserver de tels renseignements. Je demande donc à recevoir copie de tous les renseignements personnels me concernant qui sont en possession de votre ministère dans quelque banque de renseignements personnels que ce soit. N.B. Veuillez avoir l'obligeance de correspondre avec moi en français." Translation by the institution: "I am asking hereby to receive via post office a complete copy of all documents, of whichever nature, concerning and following the 1987 and 1988 exchanges between your Ministry and the Department of Social Services of the county of Northumberland regarding myself. I want to know exactly what has been transmitted by this Department to your Ministry and vice-versa, and I want to know what has been done following this exchange. I have no idea about which data bank you use to keep such information. I will thereby ask to receive a copy of all personal information about me which are in your Ministry's possession in whatever personal data bank you may use. N.B. Please be kind enough to correspond with me in French." 2. On the same day, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") sent the letter for translation from French to English, and a draft reply from English to French. These translations were completed the same day. 3. Also on February 17, 1988, the Co-ordinator sent a letter to the requester acknowledging receipt of his letter and asking for further clarification concerning the request. The Co-ordinator pointed out that the requester's letter did not provide sufficient detail to identify the record, as required under subsections 48(2) and 24(2) of the Act . The Co-ordinator asked for any information about offices or individuals the requester had corresponded with, and any details regarding court proceedings involving the requester. In order to assist the requester in clarifying or reformulating his request, the Co-ordinator enclosed a copy of the Directory of Personal Information Banks maintained by the institution. The Co-ordinator also encouraged the requester to contact the institution if further assistance was required. 4. On March 8, 1988, the institution received a letter dated March 3, 1988 in French from the requester, which was sent for translation. This letter identified an individual employed by a Department of Social Services, but provided no additional details regarding particular records, correspondence or court proceedings. The requester repeated that he wanted access to all records concerning him, and that he had no idea which data banks might contain these records. 5. On March 8, 1988, the Co-ordinator acknowledged receipt of the requester's letter, in French. 6. By memorandum dated March 11, 1988, the Co-ordinator asked the following offices to search for any records or correspondence that might pertain to the requester: Executive Assistant in the Attorney General's Office. Crown Attorney at County of Northumberland. Crown Attorney's Office (Head Office). Crown Law Office - Criminal. Supreme and District Court Services. Provincial Court Services. 7. Staff of the Supreme Court Services, District Court Services and Provincial Court Services Branches contacted their offices in the Northumberland area to determine whether any records or correspondence relating to the requester existed. 8. The Provincial Court Services Branch made a similar request of the Support and Custody Enforcement Branch. 9. All of the above-mentioned offices advised the Co-ordinator that no record concerning the requester could be located. 10. On March 22, 1988, the Co-ordinator also asked the Crown Law Office - Civil Division to search for any records relating to the requester, and was informed on March 23, 1988 that none could be found. 11. The institution then drafted a letter to the requester informing him that the requested records did not exist. It was translated into French, and sent by courier on April 7, 1988. The address for the requester used on the courier slip was the same post office box number as had been used for all previous correspondence. 12. On April 18, 1988, the courier returned the letter to the institution, indicating that they had been unable to effect delivery because a post office box rather than street address had been used on the letter. The institution sent the same letter that day to the requester by regular mail. 13. In the meantime, on April 11, 1988, my office received a letter from the requester, dated April 8, 1988, complaining that the institution had not responded to his request within the time frame prescribed by section 26 of the Act . In response to this letter, a member of my staff contacted the Co-ordinator, who explained the problems the institution had experienced in delivering the letter, and indicated that she had sent the response by regular mail on April 18, 1988. As a result, my staff person notified the requester that the response was en route, and an appeal file was not opened. 14. On May 18, 1988, the requester telephoned my office, stating that he had received no records from the institution, and requesting an appeal. An appeal file was opened at that time. 15. By l
|