|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1955
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000070-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of the Solicitor General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to documents relating to an internal review of an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into the death of the requester's son. The Ministry denied access to the records on the basis that the records fall within the scope of section 65(6) and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Act . The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry's decision. This appeal was subsequently resolved by Order PO-1797. In Order PO-1797, I determined that section 65(6) did not apply and ordered the Ministry to issue a decision on access. The Ministry applied to the court for a judicial review of Order PO-1797. At the same time, the Ministry issued a decision letter to the appellant in compliance with the provisions of Order PO-1797. In the decision letter, the Ministry denied access to the records on the basis of the following exemptions: section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information), as it relates to sections 14(1)(l) and 14(2)(a) of the Act , and section 49(b) (invasion of privacy), with reference to sections 21(2)(f) and (h), and sections 21(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act . The Ministry stated that its decision was without prejudice to its position that the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6). The Ministry also stated that access to OPP computer codes, unrelated OPP matters and records covered by previous requests was being denied on the basis that these records were not responsive to the request. Finally, the Ministry also indicated that while no exemptions were claimed for certain records, they were being withheld pending the court's decision on the judicial review application. These records are described as correspondence to or from the requester, references in records to statements or comments by the requester, and general investigative information such as weather records. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision to deny access. Despite the efforts of the Mediator during the Mediation stage of the appeal, the Ministry declined to identify which records were not responsive, which were not subject to any exemption claims, and which exemptions applied to the other responsive records. The appellant advised the Mediator that he was not interested in pursuing access to records that did not relate to his request, but because the Ministry had not identified the records it considered non-responsive, this issue could not be resolved during mediation. Mediation was unsuccessful in resolving any issues, and the appeal moved to the Adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry initially. The Notice asked the Ministry to identify which exemptions applied to each specific record. The Ministry provided representations in response to the Notice, and attached an index of records that identified the exemptions claimed for the various records and those records it considered to be non-responsive. The Ministry also withdrew the section 49(a) exemption claim. I then sent a modified Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, along with a copy of the Ministry's representations and the index of records. The appellant provided me with his representations in response to the Notice. RECORDS: A total of 122 records are listed in the Ministry's index. They consist of correspondence, witness statements, handwritten notes, a synopsis, a general occurrence report, a supplementary report and a review report, as well as correspondence to or from the appellant. In its representations, the Ministry states that records 86 and 109 have already been disclosed to the appellant during the course of the previous related inquiry. Therefore, these two records are not at issue in this appeal. The Ministry also identifies records 1-5, 7, 9, 42-45, 93-95, 97-108, and 110-112 as the ones for which no exemptions are claimed. PRELIMINARY MATTER: RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS In the decision letter, the Ministry states that access to OPP computer codes, information about unrelated OPP matters, and records covered by previous requests were denied on the basis that records containing this information were not responsive to the appellant's request. During mediation, the appellant agreed not to pursue access to any information or records not related to his request, but productive settlement discussions could not take place because the Ministry was not prepared to identify which records fit this characterization. Once the appeal had moved to the Adjudication stage, the Ministry identified the records that it considers non-responsive. It states: The Ministry has identified a number of parts of the responsive records as containing information that is not relevant to the appellant's request. This information is highlighted in pink in the responsive records provided to the IPC. Examples of the types of information that the Ministry believes is not reasonably relevant to the request include: - entries in OPP records which concern the scheduling of an officer's off duty times and days off [part of record 55]; - times, dates and badge numbers of OPP staff printing computer generated reports (responsive records) [part of records 80, 82 and 83]; - OMPPAC (Ontario Municipal Provincial Police Automated Cooperative) computer system codes [part of records 80, 82 and 83]; and - records that have already been fully released to the appellant through previous requests or considered in connection with an earlier appeal [records 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, and 85]. Former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg canvassed the issue of responsiveness of records in detail in Order P-880. In applying the direction provided by the Divisional Court in Ontario (Attorney-General) v. Fineberg (1994), 19 O.R. (3rd) 197, she concluded: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents are relevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to the request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The request itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 04, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|