|
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) or a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows:
1. On March 24, 1988, a request was made for various records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the "institution"). The nature of the requested records can be summarized as follows:
(a) Staff personnel complaint form completed by Individual A on March 29, 1987;
(b) Handwritten statement by Individual A outlining complaints respecting the requester;
(c) Statements made by Individual B on March 29, 1987 alleging disruptions of the neighbourhood by the requester;
(d) Staff personnel complaint form completed by Individuals B and C on October 15, 1987.
2. The institution had previously received a request from the appellant's spouse for information similar to that being sought by the appellant. The spouse's request involved more records than the appellant's. The institution apparently concluded that it should broaden the scope of the appellant's request to include records that were part of her spouse's request, but not included in her request.
3. Having determined that some of these records contained personal information relating to other individuals, the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") for the institution wrote to these affected persons on April 22, 1988 seeking their views on possible disclosure. The requester was advised, accordingly.
4. On May 16, 1988, the Co-ordinator advised the requester by letter that partial access was granted to some, but not all, records. The institution cited sections 14, 21 and 49 of the Act as the basis for this decision since "...the release of these documents would constitute a breach of confidentiality and an unjustified invasion of privacy".
...
|