|
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, as amended (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) or a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this interim Order are as follows:
1. On September 13, 1989, a request was made to the Ministry of the Attorney General (the "institution") for access to:
...any and all information available to myself (including my rights under the Protection of Privacy Regulations to the Criminal Code and under the Access to Information Act) concerning a possible "wiretap order" which may have been in effect concerning myself in or about the month of July 1985 and thereafter.
I have not received notification of such order pursuant to section 178.23 of the Criminal Code; however, I would greatly appreciate any information which could be provided, including the assurance, if such be the case, that no "wiretap order" was ever given in relation to myself. I emphasize that I want assurance that no wiretap ever existed if that be the case.
2. By letter dated October 18, 1989, the institution advised the appellant that:
...access is denied. The existence of the record cannot be confirmed or denied in accordance with subsection 14(3) of the Act.
3. On November 14, 1989, the appellant wrote to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the "Commissioner") to appeal the decision of the head. Notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant.
...
|