|
|
Document
|
|
P-971
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400780
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The appellant made a request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services for information pertaining to the funding of Project 80. Project 80 is a police investigation into municipal corruption, and is comprised of officers from several police forces including the Metropolitan Toronto Police, York Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police. The request was for access to the following: ... all information current to today's date relating to the funding of Project 80 by either the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Ministry of the Solicitor General. This information is to include, but not be limited to, budget projections, actual payouts, and correspondence, inside and outside the Ministry. The appellant went on to indicate that the request was not intended to apply to information previously requested. Rather, the appellant sought access to "... information in government files after May 26, 1992, which includes 1992, 1993, 1994 and any projections for 1995 and beyond." The appellant also indicated that he would be interested in both projections and actual payouts. The request letter stated that the appellant was also sending the request to the Ministry of the Attorney General. However, this appeal only relates to the request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry). The request submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General is the subject of Appeal P-9400779 and was addressed in Order P-970. The Ministry identified a number of responsive records, and initially denied access to them in their entirety, citing the following exemptions in the Act : law enforcement - sections 14(1)(a) and (b) right to fair trial - section 14(1)(f). The appellant filed an appeal of the Ministry's decision, stating that the exemptions claimed do not apply. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry states that it has reconsidered its original decision, and as a result, a substantial amount of information has now been disclosed to the appellant. The Ministry sent its revised decision in this regard, including the information being disclosed, on May 12, 1995. This decision letter indicates that parts of the records which continue to be withheld from disclosure are withheld on the basis that they are not responsive to the request, and other parts on the basis of the exemption in section 14(1)(b). The Ministry's representations also state that it no longer relies on the exemptions in sections 14(1)(a) and (f). The parts of the records which have not been disclosed, and the basis for the non-disclosure as indicated in the Ministry's representations, are as follows (adopting the Ministry's page numbers): Page Description Reason for non-disclosure 1 Date, letterhead information, identity of author and recipient, part of paragraph 2, full text of paragraph 3 Non-responsive 7 Last sentence Section 14(1)(b). I note that page 1 is the same record as one identified as page 20 in Order P-970, except that the copy at issue here does not have any handwritten notations on it. Similarly, page 7, as described above, is identical in every respect to page 7 as referred to in Order P-970. The Ministry made detailed submissions explaining why it takes the position that parts of page 1 are not responsive to the request. In order to permit the appellant to comment on this issue, a supplementary Notice of Inquiry was sent to him. The appellant submitted additional representations in response to this supplementary notice. The issues to be decided in this appeal are: (1) whether parts of page 1 are non-responsive, as claimed by the Ministry, and (2) whether the part of the records for which the Ministry has claimed section 14(1)(b) is properly exempt under that section. DISCUSSION: RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS The issue of responsiveness of records was canvassed in detail by Inquiry Officer Anita Fineberg in Order P-880. That order dealt with a re-determination regarding this issue which resulted from the decision of the Divisional Court in Ontario (Attorney-General) v. Fineberg (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 197. As in the current appeal, this case also involved requests for Project 80 funding information. In the Fineberg case, the Divisional Court characterized the issue of the responsiveness of a record to a request as one of relevance. In her discussion of this issue in Order P-880, Inquiry Officer Fineberg stated as follows: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents are relevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to the request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The request itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimately be identified as being responsive to the request. I am of the view that, in the context of freedom of information legislation, "relevancy" must mean "responsiveness". That is, by asking whether information is "relevant" to a request, one is really asking whether it is "responsive" to a request. While it is admittedly difficult to provide a precise definition of "relevancy" or "responsiveness", I believe that the term describes anything that is reasonably related to the request. I agree with these conclusions and adopt them for the purposes of this appeal. Another aspect of the non-disclosure of records on the basis of non-responsiveness is the issue of whether an institution can withhold parts of a record for this reason. As noted above, the Ministry seeks to withhold parts of one of the records because of its view that the withheld portions are non-responsive. I dealt with this issue in Order P-913. In that order, I found that, with respect to passages in a record which are in fact non-responsive, this approach is consistent with the Act . In particular, I found that this approach is supported by the wording of section 10(1), which provides a right of access to "a record or a part of a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
John Higgins
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 01, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|