|
The Ministry of the Environment (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records relating to an investigation undertaken into the disposal of waste at a dump site located in the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (the Region). Specifically, the requester sought access to the witness statements prepared by Ministry inspectors, along with any reports or memoranda prepared during the course of the investigation and any correspondence from the Region relating to the investigation.
The Ministry located a number of records which were responsive to the request and granted access to some of them, in whole or in part. Access to other records was denied, in their entirety, on the basis that they were exempt from disclosure under the following exemptions contained in the Act:
- section 21(1) - invasion of privacy - in conjunction with the presumption in section 21(3)(b) - law enforcement investigation records; and
- section 19 - solicitor-client privilege
The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the severed portions of the records, as well as those records to which access was denied in their entirety. In addition, the appellant submits that additional records responsive to his request should exist. He is of the view that the investigator's notes should include entries for the period March 8, 2000 to July 13, 2000 and that a record dated April 20, 2000 is illegible and has been severed.
The appellant also advised that he was not seeking access to the record for which the Ministry had claimed the solicitor-client privilege exemption. In addition, the appellant indicated that he was not appealing the Ministry's decision to deny him access to certain daily log sheets belonging to a disposal firm or to a waste management by-law referred to in his original request.
As further mediation was not possible, the appeal was moved to the Adjudication stage. I decided to seek the representations of the Ministry, initially. The Ministry advised that it did not intend to make any submissions in this appeal. I then provided a Notice to the appellant and to two individuals whose rights may be affected by the disclosure of the information contained in the records (the affected persons). I received submissions from one of the affected persons only.
|