IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

P-1594

Document		P-1594


File #		P-9800044


Institution/HIC		Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request, originally submitted in March 1995, was for records relating to the requester's arrest and conviction on a charge of assault. The Ministry responded to the request in August 1996 by forwarding severed copies of some responsive records to the requester. These records were returned at that time to the Ministry as the requester had moved and had not left a forwarding address. In February 1998, the requester again contacted the Ministry inquiring about its progress in locating the responsive records. The Ministry provided the appellant with a decision letter and granted access to portions of eight pages of responsive records. Access to the remaining parts of the records was denied pursuant to the following exemptions contained in the Act : law enforcement - section 14(2)(a) discretion to refuse requester's own information - section 49(a) invasion of privacy - section 49(b) The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the severed portions of the records and believes that additional records responsive to his request should exist. The appellant is also appealing the Ministry's delay in responding to the request and disputes the Ministry's position that some of the information contained in the severed portions of the records which were disclosed is not responsive to his request. During the mediation of the appeal, the Ministry located an additional two pages of police officer's notes and provided them to the appellant, with some information severed pursuant to section 49(b). In addition, the Ministry conducted additional searches for records which may have been created by several other officers who were identified by the appellant. It advised the appellant that no responsive information was located in the notebooks of these officers over the relevant time period. In addition, as a result of another request submitted by the appellant, other records relating to other incidents involving the appellant and the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) were disclosed to him in March 1998. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant and the Ministry. Submissions were received from both parties addressing the issues described in the Notice. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: DELAY IN RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST During the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant took issue with the Ministry over its alleged delay in responding to his request, which was originally made in 1995. Section 26 of the Act provides that an institution is required to respond to a request, or transfer a request to the appropriate institution, within 30 days of the receipt of the request. The Ministry acknowledges that the request was received in March 1995 but was not responded to until August 1996. It has not provided any explanation as to the reason for this delay. Nor has the appellant shed any light on why the Ministry failed to respond to the request within the time frames established by section 26. As noted above, the Ministry attempted to forward severed copies of the responsive records to the appellant in August 1996. These records were returned to it undelivered as the appellant had moved and left no forwarding address. When contacted by the appellant in February of this year, the Ministry promptly disclosed the severed records, as it is required to do under section 26. In my view, by disclosing the severed records to the appellant within the time frame required following receipt of the appellant's February 1998 inquiry, the Ministry has now remedied any breach of the requirements of section 26 which may have occurred in 1995-96. Accordingly, this issue is now moot and I need not address it further. RESPONSIVENESS OF SOME OF THE SEVERED INFORMATION Again, in the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant objected to the fact that the Ministry took the position that certain information contained in Pages 3, 4 and 6 was not responsive to his request. The information described by the Ministry as not responsive in Pages 3 and 4 consists of certain CPIC codes used by the OPP to denote a specific OPP detachment. The Ministry indicates that the non-responsive information on Page 6 consists of those portions of a police officer's notebook which describe incidents and activities undertaken by the officer on the day in question which are not related to the incident involving the appellant. I have reviewed the severed information described by the Ministry as "not responsive" in Pages 3, 4 and 6 and agree with the position taken by the OPP. I find that this information is not "reasonably related" to the request as framed by the appellant and that it is, accordingly, not responsive to the request. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH In his letter of appeal and in later correspondence with the Appeals Officer assigned to the file, the appellant appears to indicate that, in his opinion, the search undertaken by the Ministry for records responsive to his request was inadequate and that additional records should exist. I note that, as a result of another access request by the appellant, he was later granted partial access to other records about other incidents in which he was involved. It is unclear to me from the submissions of the appellant whether these other records are the records which the appellant believes should exist in addition to those addressed in this appeal. In any event, as requested in the Notice, the Ministry has provided me with information about the searches which it conducted for records which may have been created by several OPP officers identified by the appellant. Based on the information provided by the Ministry, I am satisfied that it has undertaken a thorough search through the records maintained by the specified officers and former officers for information about the incident identified by the appellant. Accordingly, I dismiss this part of the appeal. PERSONAL INFORMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY The information remaining at issue consists of certain severed portions of Pages 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the records, a two-page occurrence report, a two-page computer printout and five pages of police officers' notes. The Ministry claims that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 49(b) of the Act . Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. I have reviewed the undisclosed information contained in the records and find that they relate to the appellant and to two other identifiable individuals (the affected persons). Under section 49(b) of the Act , where a record contains the personal information of both the requester and other individuals, and the Ministry determines that disclosure of the i


Legislation		FIPPA 21(3)(b) 29(1)(a) 49(b) Section 26


Signed by		Donald Hale


Published		Jul 08, 1998


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu