|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1874
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000182-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the full report of the investigation into the drowning death of his brother. The request included access to "a copy of any and all notes, drawings, sketches, photographs, interviews, interview summaries, preliminary or draft reports, or any other writing or document related to this investigation that is not included in the final report of investigation". The Ministry identified 89 pages of responsive records. The Ministry notified an individual who was present at the scene of the drowning death (the witness) and invited his comments on disclosure of the records to the appellant. The witness did not consent to disclosure of his statement. The Ministry then issued its decision to the appellant and granted partial access to the records. The Ministry denied access to the remaining records, in part or in whole, on the basis of the exemptions provided by sections 14(1)(l) and 49(a) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act/discretion to refuse requester's own information), and 21(2)(f), 21(3)(b) and/or in conjunction with 49(b) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . The Ministry also indicated that some portions of the withheld records were not responsive to the request. The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision on the basis that he believes the deceased's family's rights to information pertaining to the death should outweigh the privacy rights of an individual who "voluntarily" gave a statement to the police, in this case, the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP). During mediation, the appellant indicated that he was not interested in pursuing access to police codes withheld under section 14(1)(l) of the Act nor the information withheld by the Ministry on the basis that it was not responsive to the request. Accordingly, sections 14(1)(l), 49(a) and the responsiveness of the records are no longer at issue in this appeal. The appellant indicated further that he was only interested in obtaining access to the statement of the witness, being pages 7 to 11 of the record and on this basis, the scope of the appeal was narrowed to pages 7 to 11, withheld under section 49(b) and with reference to sections 21(2)(f) (highly sensitive information) and 21(3)(b) (compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law) of the Act . Also during mediation, the Mediator contacted the witness for the purpose of obtaining consent to disclosure of his statement. The witness declined to give consent. This appeal was subsequently moved into Inquiry. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, initially. The appellant submitted representations in response. After reviewing them, I decided that it was not necessary to hear from the Ministry or the witness. RECORD: The record at issue is titled "Interview Report" and consists of a five-page witness statement given to the OPP by the witness. The record contains a description of the witness's observations regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of the appellant's brother and his responses to questions asked by the investigating officer. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including any identifying number assigned to the individual and 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. Section 2(2) of the Act provides that personal information does not include information about an individual who has been dead for more than thirty years. The appellant submits that the record does not contain the personal information of either the witness or the appellant's deceased brother. In this regard, the appellant states: Concerning the witness, at best it can be argued that Section 2(1)(h) would protect the individual's name or other personal information. However, I specifically withdrew my request for any information that may be considered a personal identifier of the witness... With respect to his deceased brother, the appellant notes that he has received some information about him relating to the circumstances of his death and believes that withholding any other information about him would lead to an absurdity as that principle has been applied by this office (see, for example: Order PO-1715). The record contains information relating to the witness, his relationship to the deceased and his observations/involvement with the deceased around the time of his death. I find that this record contains the personal information of the witness and the deceased primarily, as well as other individuals referred to in it. The appellant is not referred to in the record. Moreover, as the statement given by the witness pertained to the circumstances of the incident which resulted in the appellant's brother's death, and the appellant was not present or involved in this incident, I find that it does not relate to the appellant in any way and does not contain his personal information. There have been occasions in previous orders where a finding has been made that once a name is removed from a record, the remaining information can no longer be characterized as "personal information" (Order M-264, for example). This would be the case, for example, where the parties are complete strangers and there is nothing in the remaining portions of the record or in the circumstances that could reasonably allow the reader to infer the person's identity. However, in Order P-230, former Commissioner Tom Wright stated: I believe that provisions of the Act relating to protection of personal privacy should not be read in a restrictive manner. If there is a reasonable expectation that the individual can be identified from the information, then such information qualifies under subsection 2(1) as personal information. I agree with former Commi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 28, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|