|
On July 8, 1991, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the "Act").
BACKGROUND:
On July 3, 1990, a request for access to notes and statements taken by a police officer at the site of an automobile collision was made to the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the "institution").
Pursuant to section 28(1) of the Act, the institution notified one person who had given a statement about the collision (the "affected person"). The affected person objected to the release of the portion of the record which related to him. The institution subsequently granted partial access to the record, citing sections 14(2)(a) and 21(3)(b) of the Act as the basis for denying access to the severed portion of the record. The requester (the "appellant") appealed the institution's decision.
An Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal and to attempt to mediate a settlement. During the course of mediation, it was learned that the institution had not notified one other person whose name appeared in the record. At the Appeals Officer's request, the institution contacted this individual, who consented to the release of his personal information. The only remaining issue is whether the severed portion of the record which consists of the statement given to the police officer by the affected person should be released.
Attempts at further mediation of the appeal were not successful, and the matter proceeded to an inquiry. Written representations were received from the institution, withdrawing its objection to disclosure of the information relating to the affected person. The affected person was subsequently notified of the institution's change of position, but no representations from him were received. Representations were also not received from the appellant, although his lawyer's correspondence with this Office during the course of the appeal contained statements indicating that the information was being sought by the appellant for the "purposes of litigation".
In the circumstances of this appeal, I must balance the right of access to the severed portion of the record against the protection of the affected persons's privacy. Even though the affected person did not make representations during the course of this appeal, it is known that he initially objected to the release of any information which related to him. I cannot construe the absence of representations as consent to the record's release. I will therefore proceed to consider whether release of the severed portion of the record to the appellant would constitute an unjustified invasion of the affected person's privacy.
...
|