|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1966
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000396-1 and PA-000397-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted two requests to the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ), for access to information. In her initial request, she sought access to the notes, occurrence reports, and related information of nine named officers of the Ontario Province Police (OPP). This information concerns various incidents and disputes involving the appellant that occurred between 1997 and 2000. The Ministry located approximately 164 pages of records (records 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) as responsive to the request. It granted partial access to them, claiming the exemptions at section 49(a) together with section 14, and section 49(b) together with sections 21 (invasion of privacy) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). The Ministry also indicated that it had withheld information that was not relevant to the request. The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision under Appeal PA-000396-1. Shortly after, the appellant submitted a second request seeking access to a general occurrence report (record 9) and a videotape (record 10) that was provided to the Police by a third party. Both documents concern a specific property dispute involving the appellant and third parties, in 1998. The videotape is a recording of a specific incident that occurred on a certain date. In its decision letter, the Ministry advised the appellant that it had no videotape responsive to the request. The Ministry located the general occurrence report and granted partial access to it, relying on the exemptions at sections 49(a) and 14, and sections 49(b) and 21. The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision and this office opened Appeal PA-000397-1. Because the issues in these appeals are similar, this office combined them. During mediation, a number of events occurred: The Ministry agreed to disclose one entry on page 2 of record 1 as the information related solely to the appellant. The appellant agreed not to pursue information which the Ministry deemed was not relevant to her request including dates, police "ten-codes" and computer system information. As a result, section 14(1)(l) is no longer at issue in these appeals. The appellant reiterated her belief that the OPP has a copy of the videotape of the 1998 property incident. The Ministry conducted an additional search but did not locate the responsive videotape. The appellant indicated that there are additional police officers' notes which are responsive to her request. Consequently, reasonableness of the Ministry's search has been added as issue. The Mediator contacted four affected persons, who are witnesses and/or parties to the appellant's allegations, to determine whether they would consent to the disclosure of their personal information in the responsive records. Two individuals did not respond and two indicated that they did not consent to disclosure of their personal information. As further mediation was not successful, both appeals proceeded to adjudication. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry, initially, summarizing the facts and issues of the appeals. During the adjudication stage, the Ministry reconsidered its position and issued supplemental decision letters for both appeals. Under Appeal PA-000396-1, the Ministry advised that it had obtained consent from an identified third party to disclose his personal information. This individual's personal information, found at pages 63, 64, 69, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 106 and 114, is no longer at issue. It also issued a supplemental decision for Appeal PA-000397-1, advising that the responsive videotape had been located but access was denied on the basis of section 49(b). The Ministry returned representations and in them advised that it was withdrawing its reliance on the exemptions at section 49(a) and sections 14 and 19. It continues to rely on the exemption at section 49(b), together with section 21, to deny access to the remaining information at issue in these appeals. The Ministry's representations were shared with the appellant, in their entirety, together with a copy of the Notice. The appellant also returned submissions. RECORDS: There are a total of 11 records, in part and in full, at issue in these appeals. In Appeal PA-000396-1, the Ministry withheld portions of records 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. These records consist of OPP officers' notes and related correspondence, witness statements, and general occurrence reports. There are two records at issue in Appeal PA-000397-1. Record 9 consists of the undisclosed portions of a 10-page general occurrence report that was prepared by the OPP concerning the 1998 property dispute. Record 10 is a videotape recording of a property dispute that occurred on a certain date. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH In appeals involving a claim that further responsive records exist, as in this case, the issue to be decided is whether the Ministry conducted a reasonable search for the records as required by section 24 of the Act . If I am satisfied that the search carried out was reasonable in the circumstances, the decision of the Ministry will be upheld. If I am not satisfied, further searches may be ordered. A preliminary step in determining whether the search conducted by the Ministry for responsive records was reasonable is to determine whether the Ministry properly interpreted the appellant's request. The Act recognizes that both requesters and institutions have obligations in ensuring that a request is responded to properly. Section 24(1) specifies that a requester must provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced government employee to identify the record. Section 24(2) requires institutions to inform and assist requesters in reformulating their requests in those cases where a request does not sufficiently describe the record sought. To properly discharge its obligations under the Act , the Ministry must provide sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all responsive records (Orders M-282, P-458 and P-535). A reasonable search would be one in which an experienc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Dora Nipp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 14, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|