|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal from a decision of the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act . The requester (now the appellant) had sought access to the full investigation file of the Special Investigations Unit (the SIU), including the report of the Sarnia Police Services Board, about a motor vehicle accident involving the appellant and a police officer with the Sarnia Police Service. The appellant remains in a coma as a result of this accident (he is represented by counsel in this appeal). The SIU investigated the accident, and the Director of the SIU ultimately determined that criminal charges were not warranted against the police officer. The Ministry located 56 records, including correspondence, witness statements, police officers' notes, audiotapes, videotapes, photographs, maps and diagrams. Access was granted to Records 40, 45 and 47 in their entirety, and Record 6 in part. The Ministry denied access to the remaining portion of Record 6 and all remaining records, relying on the discretionary exemption in section 14(2)(a) of the Act (report prepared in the course of law enforcement), and the mandatory exemption in section 21 (unjustified invasion of privacy), with reference to the presumption in section 21(3)(b). A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry and to four affected parties, initially, inviting their representations on the facts and issues raised by the appeal. In the Notice, I also made reference to sections 49(a) and (b) of the Act which, on my review, may also be relevant. The Ministry's representations and the Notice of Inquiry were then sent to the appellant, who has also provided representations. Although I refer to representations from the appellant in this order, clearly, because of his condition, counsel has made these representations on his behalf. I received no response from three of the four affected parties. One affected party responded by providing partial consent to release of her information, with the exception of her address and telephone number. The only record to which this consent is relevant is Record 15 (see discussion below). The appellant has provided me with consents from his parents and his spouse (who was a passenger in the car at the time of the accident), to the release of their information. CONCLUSION: I uphold the Ministry's decision to withhold Records 1 to 4, 7, 11, 28 to 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 41 to 44, and 49 to 53 in their entirety. I order disclosure of Records 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 27, 39, 46, 48 and 54 to 56 in their entirety. I order disclosure of Records 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 to 26, 29, 31, 33, 34 and 37 with the exception of exempt portions which shall be severed from the records. RECORDS: The records in issue are listed in the attached Appendix "A". The use of the word "report" in Appendix "A" is based on the terminology used in the Index of Records provided by the Ministry and does not reflect a conclusion by me that the records constitute "reports" within the meaning of section 14(2)(a) of the Act (see discussion below). DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION It is necessary to decide, firstly, whether the records contain personal information, and if so, to whom that personal information relates, for the answers to these questions determine which parts of the Act may apply. Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. The Ministry submits, in general, that the records in issue contain personal information relating to persons other than the appellant. These persons include such individuals as the subject officer, the witness officers, the civilian witnesses, and other persons involved in the investigation. These materials include the SIU Director's Report to the Attorney General, the SIU Intake Form, correspondence, reports generated by the Sarnia Police Service and the SIU, the transcript of the police communications tape, witness list, notebook entries of police witnesses (including the subject officer) and the audiotapes of witness statements. The Ministry submits that the records also contain information which may or may not constitute personal information relating to the appellant. The appellant submits that some of the records may contain personal information which relates to persons other than the appellant, such as civilian witnesses, witness officers, the subject officer and other persons involved in the investigation. The appellant states that he has been provided with no information regarding the contents of these records in order to comment on whether the information in each record at issue qualifies as personal information and if so, to whom that information relates. However, based on the brief description of the records provided, the appellant submits that a number of records do not contain personal information, such as the map, coefficient of friction of various roadway surfaces, Sarnia Police Service Exhibit List, Towing Invoice, Technical Collision Investigation Notes, Correspondence from the SIU to the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator, photographs, videotape of vehicles, oversize scene diagram and correspondence between the Sarnia Police Service and the SIU. My findings on this issue are as follows: Records 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 15,19, 21 to 26, 28 to 32, 34 to 38, 41, 43 to 44, 46 and 50 to 53 contain the personal information of the appellant, along with that of other identifiable individuals, including civilian witnesses, the subject officer and other persons. Record 27 contains the personal information of the appellant only, and not of any other individuals. Records 13, 18, 33, 42 and 49 contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant, and do not contain personal information of the appellant. Records 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 39, 48 and 54 to 56 do not contain any information which qualifies as "personal information" within the definition of that term in section 2(1). Previous decisions of this Office have held that information about an individual in his or her professional or employment capacity does not constitute that individual's personal information where the information relates to the individual's employment responsibilities or position (see Reconsideration Order R-980015 and Order PO-1663). However, where information about the individual involves an evaluation of his or her performance as an employee or an investigation into his or her conduct as an employee, then these references are considered to be the individual's personal information (see Orders P-721, P-939, P-1318 and PO-1772).In Order PO-1912, information about OPP and other police officers in records originally created in these officers' professional duties was found to constitute their personal information where the conduct of the officers was later called into question by a lawsuit. Applying these principles to the facts of this appeal, although Records 4, 8, 9, and 10 contain information about the appellant as well as o
|