|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-972
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400747
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: In this appeal, the requester wished to review the parole report of a named individual (the parolee), including any recommendations made by the individual's parole officer. The requester believed that he, personally, had been referred to in the report. The requester directed his access request to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) which held the record in question. The requester also provided the Ministry with a letter signed by the parolee where the individual consented to have his personal information released to the requester. The Ministry identified a Post Suspension Report dated June 17, 1994 as the record that was responsive to the request. This document was authored by a Probation and Parole Officer who worked for the Ontario Board of Parole. The Ministry disclosed certain parts of this report to the requester but withheld the remaining portions based on the following exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ): correctional records - section 14(2)(d) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the requester (now the appellant), the Ministry and five individuals who were mentioned in the report (the affected parties). In her submissions, counsel for the appellant argued that the report contained the personal information of her client. As a result, the parties were subsequently asked to make submissions on the application of section 49(b) of the Act (invasion of privacy). Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant and two of the affected parties. One of these individuals indicated that he would not be making formal submissions while the second did not object to the disclosure of the record. In this order, any further reference to the term "affected party" will not include the parolee. In her submissions, counsel for the appellant also indicated that her client was not interested in obtaining information about the living arrangements of the parolee. I have highlighted these passages of the record in yellow for the benefit of the Ministry. This information falls outside the ambit of the appeal and must not be disclosed to the appellant. In its representations, the Ministry indicated that it would no longer be relying on the correctional records exemption. Consequently, I will not make further reference to section 14(2)(d) in my order. DISCUSSION: RECORDS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST: In her letter of appeal, counsel for the appellant asked why the Ministry had not provided her client with a copy of the final parole report, including attachments, as well as any transcripts or audiotapes of the relevant parole hearing. During the processing of the file, the Appeals Officer advised counsel that the appellant had not originally sought access to these records and, thus, that they fell outside the scope of the appeal. With a view towards resolving this issue, however, the Appeals Officer asked the Ministry about the whereabouts of these documents. The Ministry subsequently advised the Commissioner's office that a final parole report is only issued where an individual has successfully completed his or her period of parole. Since at the point in time that the appeal was filed, the individual was still on parole, a final report had not been prepared. The Appeals Officer informed counsel of this fact in writing and confirmed that the only record at issue in this appeal was the Post Suspension Report. No response to this communication was received. In her representations, however, counsel has again indicated that she wishes to obtain access to these additional records. Previous orders have held that the Commissioner's office has the power to control the manner in which the appeals process is undertaken. As part of this general authority, this tribunal's policy is that a requester cannot expand the nature of his or her request during the appeal process. In addition, once an appellant has narrowed the ambit of an appeal, he or she cannot reintroduce the excluded information at a later date. This approach has been adopted for a number of reasons. First, absent such a policy, there would be no certainty as to the scope of an appeal. Second, unless the exact nature of the records at issue is known at an early stage in the proceedings, it will not be possible to successfully mediate the appeal under section 51 of the Act . Finally, the issue identification and notification functions performed by the Commissioner's office could not be conducted effectively unless the records in question are accurately identified. While I appreciate the appellant's reasons for wanting to address all access related issues in the context of the present appeal, I believe that it would be unfair to expand the scope of these proceedings at this late stage in the process. In making this determination, I am also mindful of the fact that counsel for the appellant would be entitled to make a further access request to the Ministry for any other information about her client which she believes should exist. For the reasons outlined, I will not consider whether there are any further records that are responsive to the request in the context of the present appeal. PERSONAL INFORMATION AND THE INVASION OF PRIVACY I will now determine whether the Ministry must release the Post Suspension Report to the appellant. To do so, I must first consider whether the report contains personal information and, if so, to whom this personal information relates. Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. In addition, where individual (X) expresses a view or opinion about individual (Y), section 2(1)(g) of the Act prescribes that this is the personal information of individual (Y) and not that of individual (X). The Commissioner's office has also issued many orders which indicate that information provided by an individual in his/her professional or employment capacity does not constitute pers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 03, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|