|
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) for access to:
Any and all reports, minutes or records of meetings, statements, memos, letters, notes or any other written material concerning the Ontario Provincial Police investigation of [a named individual], including all police findings of said information; and the name of the person identified by [the named individual] as providing [the named individual] with the criminal records of [a second named individual].
The Ministry located a number of records that were responsive to the request but denied access to these documents in full based on the exemptions contained in sections 14(1)(a), (b) and (f), 14(2)(a), 19 and 21 of the Act. The requester appealed the denial of access, and raised the application of sections 21(2)(a) and 23 as considerations which weighed in favour of disclosure. This appeal was assigned number P-9300192 by the Commissioner's office.
Following the filing of the appeal, the Ministry issued two supplementary decision letters, claiming further exemptions based on sections 14(1)(l) and 14(2)(c) of the Act.
Mediation was not successful. Notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Ministry's decision was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. Representations were received from the Ministry only. The appellant indicated that he would be relying on the reasons for appealing as set out in his letter of appeal.
While these representations were being considered, Commissioner Tom Wright issued Order M-170 which interpreted several statutory provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in a way which differed from the interpretation developed in previous orders. Since a new approach to the operation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was being adopted and because similar statutory provisions are at issue in the present appeal, it was determined that copies of Order M-170 should be provided to the appellant and the Ministry. The parties were then afforded the opportunity to state whether the contents of Order M-170 would cause them to change or to supplement the representations which they had previously made. No further representations were received.
...
|