|
Summary
|
|
Order are as follows: On March 11, 1988, the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the "institution") received a request seeking from the Minden detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police "copies of all data on file with the Department dating back to beginning of 1984". By way of explanation, the requester advised that he had reported numerous thefts, vandalism, trespass, and unlawful hunting incidents to the department over the years, none of which had been resolved. On April 6, 1988, the institution responded that "partial access is granted to documents relating to your request. Access is denied to documents containing personal information under section 21 of the Act . This provision applies because the release of these documents would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy". Upon reviewing the records, it appears that the requester was not denied access to any records in their entirety, but rather certain information was severed from the records. By letter dated April 18, 1988, the requester appealed the decision of the head, citing dissatisfaction with the severances, the content of the records and the incompleteness of the records. Regarding the latter, he gave as examples the fact that there was not any record of various thefts he had reported in August, September and October 1984, nor was there any record of a complaint filed against him by a third party. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. The records were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer. After discussions with the Appeals Officer, the institution located the complaint made against the appellant by a third party and released the record to him. By letter dated July 18, 1988, I sent notice to the institution and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head and enclosing a copy of the Appeals Officer's Report prepared by my office. By letter dated July 27, 1988, I invited the appellant and the institution to make written representations to me. It should be noted that prior to the institution submitting its representations, the institution conducted a further search for records and an additional 5 pages of documentation dating back to 1984 were located and released to the appellant. Written representations were received from both parties and I have considered these representations in making my Order. The issues arising in this appeal is as follows: A. Whether the institution has taken reasonable steps to locate the records; and B. Whether the institution's records retention procedures are in accordance with the Act . ISSUE A: Whether the institution has taken reasonable steps to locate the records. In his request, the appellant refers generally to some 30 separate complaints he filed with the institution over a 25-year period, including reports of theft, vandalism, trespass, and illegal hunting. In his representations, the appellant states that the reason he believes that certain records are being withheld from him is "...records have been retained of minor incidents yet data of greater importance such as 13 thefts of building material over a 3-month period, there is 'NOT A SINGLE RECORD'." At my request, the institution outlined in affidavit form the steps taken by its officials to locate the records. With respect to the original search for the records, the institution states that the appellant's written request was forwarded to #8 District Headquarters of the OPP along with a letter from the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator requesting all original documentation relating to the request. The local official first checked the index card files and then retrieved the available occurrence reports and officer's notebooks where occurrence reports no longer existed. The records were forwarded to the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator for review and then released. In the later stages of this appeal, the institution located and released more records. The first record was a report of a complaint filed by a third party about the appellant. The institution submits that this record was not part of the appellant's original request but that in the mediation/ investigation stage of the appeal, at the request of the Appeals Officer, a further search for this record was conducted, the record was located and subsequently released to the appellant. Upon reviewing the appellant's request, I find that it is not at all apparent that he had requested this particular record. Nevertheless, the institution subsequently complied with the spirit of the Act and searched for and released this additional information. The institution conducted a final search for records at the inquiry stage of the appeal and more records were located; specifically, 5 pages from officers' notebooks dating back to August 1984 (vandalism) and October 1984 (follow-up to complaint against appellant). These documents were also prepared for release to the appellant. In conducting its search for the records (both the original and supplementary searches) the institution states that it relied on the information provided by the appellant: his name, address, date of birth, the general nature of the occurrences he had reported and the detachment where he believed the records were located. The Freedom of Information Co-ordinator submitted that "given the limited information, I am of the belief that the steps taken to locate the records were reasonable." In my Orders in Appeal Nos. 880053 and 880067 dated December 28, 1988, I outlined my views on the responsibilities of both the institution and the requester when a request requires clarification. As I noted in those Orders, sections 47 and 48 of the Act place the responsibility for ascertaining the nature or whereabouts of a record of personal information on both the requester and the institution. In this case, the requester was able to identify the records he requested with some precision so as to enable the institution to search its files and, although the institution could not locate all of the records in its custody and control at first instance, they did eventually locate further records when provided with more details. I find the search undertaken was reasonable, given the nature of the request as clarified and that both the appellant and institution discharged their obligations as to clarification, under the Act . ISSUE B: Whether th
|