|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-490
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9300039
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of the Environment (now the Ministry of the Environment and Energy) (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to records relating to the Penetanguishine Mental Health Centre (the PMHC) and the Oak Ridge Division, specifically relating to the quality of drinking water and the water tower of the PMHC for November 1, 1990 through November 1, 1991. The Ministry charged a fee of $67.40, which the requester paid, and granted access to 82 pages of records, stating in its covering letter that the records provided are all the records that exist in the Ministry's files pertaining to the request. The requester appealed the Ministry's decision on the basis that not all of the records provided are responsive to his request, that additional responsive records exist which were not disclosed to him, and that the fee charged was excessive. Mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Ministry's decision was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. Representations were received from both parties. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are: A: Whether the Ministry's search for records responsive to the request was reasonable in the circumstances. B: Whether the records provided to the appellant were responsive to his request. C: Whether the fees charged by the Ministry were calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 57(1) of the Act . SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the Ministry's search for records responsive to the request was reasonable in the circumstances. In his original request, the appellant identified the Barrie District Office and the Laboratory Services Branch of the Ministry as the locations to which the search for records responsive to his request should be limited. In his representations, the appellant indicated that he believes the same two locations at the Ministry should have been searched for responsive records. The Ministry's written representations include an affidavit detailing a search of the Barrie District Office. Having reviewed the representations and the affidavit submitted to me, I am satisfied that the search conducted by the Ministry for records responsive to the appellant's request at the Barrie District Office was detailed, comprehensive and reasonable in the circumstances. The Ministry's representations do not, however, indicate a search of the Laboratory Services Branch. The Ministry's representations indicate that certain specific records at the Laboratory Services Branch were the subject of a different request by the appellant but that request was considered abandoned by the Ministry after the appellant failed to provide a required fee deposit. In my view, the existence and subsequent abandonment of the appellant's other request does not affect the Ministry's obligation to search the Laboratory Services Branch for records responsive to the request in this matter. In my view, the Ministry's search was not reasonable in the circumstances in that the Laboratory Services Branch should have been searched and was not. ISSUE B: Whether the records provided to the appellant were responsive to his request. As has been stated in a number of previous orders (Orders 13, 33, 38, and 134), both requesters and institutions have certain obligations with respect to access requests under the Act . These obligations are set out in section 24 with respect to general access requests. Sections 24(1) and (2) read: (1) A person seeking access to a record shall make a request therefor in writing to the institution that the person believes has custody or control of the record and shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record. (2) If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with subsection (1). An institution that receives a broadly worded request has three choices in making its response. It can choose to respond literally to the request, which may involve an institution-wide search for the records requested; it can request further information from the requester in order to narrow its area of search; or it can narrow the search unilaterally. If the third option is chosen, the institution must outline the limits of the search to the appellant. The Ministry in this case submits that the request was sufficiently detailed, as worded by the appellant. The appellant's request makes specific reference to quality of drinking water and to the locations and time frame to which records are to relate. The records provided by the Ministry relate to the subject matter of the request and the time period for which records were sought. In my view, the records are responsive to the appellant's request. ISSUE C: Whether the fees charged by the Ministry were calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 57(1) of the Act . Section 57(1) of the Act states: Where no provision is made for a charge or fee under any other Act, a head shall require the person who makes a request for access to a record to pay, (a) a search charge for every hour of manual search required in excess of two hours to locate a record; (b) the costs of preparing the record for disclosure; (c) computer and other costs incurred in locating, retrieving, processing and copying a record; and (d) shipping costs. Section 6 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 460 made under the Act states, in part: The following are the fees that shall be charged for the purposes of subsection 57(1) of the Act : 1. For photocopies and computer printouts, 20 cents per page. ... 3. For manually searching for a record after two hours have been spent searching, $7.50 for each fifteen minutes spent by any person. 4. For preparing a record for disclosure, including severing a part of the record, $7.50 for each fifteen minutes spent by any person. ... The Ministry issued a fee estim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
24(1)
-
24(2)
-
29(1)(a)(ii)
-
57(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Holly Big Canoe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 30, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|