|
|
Document
|
|
P-45
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880160
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 personal information under subsection 48(1) 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 March 28, 1988, the requester made the following request to the Ministry of the Attorney General (the "institution"): "(Re: my complaint against the Ontario Human Rights Commission - first letter sent to the Attorney General, December 1st, 1985). I request the record pertaining to this matter, preceding and after December 1st, 1985". 2. The institution responded on May 3, 1988 by stating that "...access to the requested record has been granted in full". 3. The requester believed that full access had not been granted and contacted the institution by telephone on May 4, 1988 to request additional correspondence for the period 1985 to 1986. 4. On June 8, 1988, the institution wrote to the requester to advise that "...we have conducted a further review of our records and wish to confirm that we do not have any additional records in our custody". 5. By letter dated June 2, 1988, the requester appealed the institution's decision, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 6. The appellant advised the Appeals Officer assigned to this case that he had possession of copies of a letter he had written to the Attorney General in December, 1985, which was not included in the file provided to him by the institution. As a result, the appellant concluded that the institution had not provided full access to the requested records. The appellant also felt that the institution was attempting to "...conceal evidence of criminal and otherwise illegal behavior in the conduct of Government operations...". 7. This information was provided by the Appeals Officer to the institution's Freedom of Information Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator"), and the institution undertook to search its records again and provide my office with a memorandum outlining the steps taken in trying to locate the requested records (in particular, the appellant's letter to the Attorney General dated December 1, 1985). The appellant meanwhile provided the Appeals Officer with a copy of this letter. 8. The memorandum prepared by the institution indicated that the second search had failed to locate any additional records. 9. Further settlement attempts were unsuccessful, and on December 9, 1988, I advised the appellant and the institution by letter that I was conducting an inquiry into this matter. Included with this notice was a copy of the Appeals Officer's report which outlined the issues considered by my office to be relevant. On consent of the institution, the appellant was also provided with a copy of the institution's memorandum. Both the institution and the appellant were invited to make written representations. 10. On February 24, 1989, a Compliance Auditor from my staff attended with the Appeals Officer at the institution's offices and reviewed the procedures employed by the institution in logging and tracking correspondence. 11. I received written representations from the institution and the appellant and have considered them, together with the report from the Compliance Auditor, in making my Order. The issue in this appeal is whether the institution has taken all reasonable steps to locate records that respond to the appellant's request. In its memorandum outlining the steps taken by the institution to search for the requested records the Co-ordinator stated: A branch search was conducted by the Director of Crown Attorneys involving file searches by the Deputy Director's secretary, Counsel's secretary and an articling law student. This branch also contacted the Forms & Records Branch as well as the correspondence assistant in the Minister's office. In the Minister's Office, correspondence was tracked on the computerized mail log (in use since May 1986); The alphabetical print-out of mail received from October 1985 to April 31, 1986 was reviewed; Daily mail records maintained from May 1985 to October 1985 were also reviewed. With respect to the Minister's Office, all documents received are recorded in the above mail log systems and sent to appropriate divisions for reply. No copies are retained in the Minister's Office while a reply is being prepared. All completed replies, however, are filed in the Minister's Office. No correspondence is ever shredded. The only foreseeable situation in which a letter may have become lost was during the change of government in the Autumn of 1987. It is also foreseeable that the Minister's office never received [the appellant's] letter. The Co-ordinator also provided me with copies of memoranda provided to her by institution officials who conducted searches in their respective offices or departments. In a sworn affidavit provided by the institution, the Co-ordinator stated: The steps taken to locate the record revealed three (3) letters written by the Appellant to the Attorney General, dated August 11, 1987, January 29, 1988, and May 25, 1988. Each of these letters was in turn answered by the Minister on August 28, 1987, February 19, 1987 and June 6, 1988 respectively. No letter dated December 1, 1985 was found. ...I submit that the steps taken were reasonable and sufficient. This office and the Ministry branches that could possibly have retained records pertaining to the Appellant undertook every possible conceivable step to locate a record which might provide the information requested by the Appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, has provided me with copies of letters dated December 1, 1985 and May 30, 1986 written by him to the Attorney General, together with a letter dated June 12, 1986 from the Attorney General, acknowledging receipt of a letter from the appellant dated May 13, 1986 (which I believe to be an erroneous reference to the appellant's May 30, 1986 letter). None of these letters were included in the material provided to the appellant, prompting him to conclude that he had not been granted full access to all relevant records. While I am satisfied that the two searches undertaken by the institution were reasonable in the circumstances, it concerns me that neither search produced al
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 21, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|