|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1837
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-990388-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal from a decision of the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The decision was made in relation to a request for certain records kept by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the OCCOPS). In its decision, the Ministry provided a number of records to the requester (now the appellant) in response to parts of the request, and indicated that no records exist in relation to other parts of the request. In this appeal, the sole issue is whether the Ministry has conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request. The appellant contends that it has not, and that more records exist. The parts of the request which are at issue in this appeal are: minutes of meetings during which there were discussions regarding the appellant's complaint about the conduct of the former chief and two other officers of the Amherstburg Police Service (the Amherstburg Police); minutes of meetings during which there were discussions in relation to a letter from the appellant to the OCCOPS dated March 4, 1999, asking for a decision; minutes of meetings during which the appellant's complaint was reviewed and the basis of the decision that the matter be remitted to the Police Services Board for further action; minutes of meetings and the basis for a decision to forward a copy of a report of the Chatham-Kent Police to the Amherstburg Police Chief for his adjudication as stated in correspondence dated April 7, 1999 from the OCCOPS to the appellant; minutes of meetings during which there was discussion in relation to a letter from the appellant to the OCCOPS dated September 1, 1998, requesting an investigation; minutes of meetings during which there was discussion in relation to a letter from the appellant to the OCCOPS dated August 27, 1998; minutes of meetings during which there was discussion in relation to a letter from the appellant to the OCCOPS dated July 2, 1998; all correspondence from the OCCOPS to the Amherstburg Police regarding the appellant's complaint and the subsequent investigation by the Chatham-Kent Police; all correspondence from the OCCOPS to the Amherstburg Police referring the matter to the Amherstburg Police for its review. The Ministry has indicated that no records exist in relation to parts 1-7 above. It has provided the appellant with copies of certain records in relation to parts 8 and 9. The appellant asserts that records exist in relation to parts 1-7, and that more records exist than have been disclosed in relation to parts 8 and 9. In response to the Notice of Inquiry sent by this office, the Ministry has provided representations, which were subsequently forwarded to the appellant for her response. The appellant has also provided representations in this matter. CONCLUSION: I find that the Ministry's search for responsive records was reasonable. DISCUSSION: In appeals involving a claim that further responsive records exist, as is the case in this appeal, the issue to be decided is whether the Ministry has conducted a reasonable search for the records as required by section 24 of the Act . The Act does not require the Ministry to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. In order to properly discharge its obligations under the Act , the Ministry must establish, however, that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request. The representations provided by the Ministry state that a search for records was conducted at the offices of the OCCOPS by a staff member at the OCCOPS who is familiar with the file and with the possible location of any records in relation to this request. Sixty-two pages of responsive records were located, access to all of which was provided to the appellant. Further searches were subsequently conducted during the mediation of this matter by staff from OCCOPS, none of which resulted in locating any other records. In prior correspondence to the appellant, the Ministry has outlined the process followed by the OCCOPS in reviewing the decisions of police services concerning public complaints. The Ministry states that such meetings of OCCOPS members are ex parte (ie. neither the complainant nor the police service or its officer(s) attend), in camera (ie. not in public), and no notes or minutes are taken. Case review meetings are generally presided over by two or more OCCOPS members. Also in attendance is the case manager who has prepared the file for review and, usually, the OCCOPS senior investigator. In preparing a file for review, the case manager prepares a case summary which outlines the allegations, the parties' respective positions and recommendations to the OCCOPS. If the review panel makes a decision other than to confirm the decision of the police service, the case manager may make a note on the case summary regarding those matters the panel wishes to have included in the decision letter but other than that, no notes are taken. Among the records disclosed to the appellant in response to her request is a case summary in relation to her complaint to the OCCOPS. Handwritten notes on the case summary indicate that the decision of the review panel was not to confirm the decision of the Amherstburg Police in this instance, but to direct an investigation. The appellant contends that minutes of case review meetings must be kept. She states, among other things, that the OCCOPS is an "independent quasi-judicial civilian agency that carries out a mixed combination of duties." Further, the appellant has submitted a letter, unrelated to this appeal, which she states is evidence as to the existence of minutes. The letter in question is dated August 20, 1998, is addressed to the Secretary of the Amherstburg Police from the Registrar of the OCCOPS, and discusses the proposed amalgamation of three police services into one. Among other things, the letter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sherry Liang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 30, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|