|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-287
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
900477
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Transportation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R BACKGROUND: On May 15, 1990, the Ministry of Transportation (the "institution") received a request for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the " Act ") to: ... records and other that will provide us with the evolution of the drafting of section 7(d) of Regulation 86/89 [under the Highway Traffic Act ] to its present reading and to include tabled papers from persons or associations that lobbied in support or opposed of this exemption of a specific class of drivers from the daily trip inspections.... Kindly include any relevant minutes retained by the ministry personnel who were representing [the institution] when attending meetings ('National Safety Code Committee', 1985 to May 1988 and then 'Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs') concerning the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers... The requester indicated that its objective was to ascertain why a specific class of driver was exempted from the daily trip inspection requirement ("circle check") referred to in the regulation. The institution issued an fee estimate of $837.00 for 34.5 hours of chargeable search time at $24.00 per hour, and an estimated 75 pages of photocopying at .20 cent a page. The requester asked for a fee waiver, and paid a deposit of $420.00 to the institution. The institution waived the remaining portion of the fee, accepting the $420.00 as full payment. The institution disclosed thirteen pages (the "record") to the requester on August 13, 1990. The requester felt that the record was not responsive to its request and appealed the institution's decision to this office. The appellant states that the institution incorrectly interpreted the request as relating to the exemption from making a trip inspection report, as opposed to the exemption from making trip inspections. After receiving the record, the appellant also appealed the amount of the fee estimate provided to it by the institution, claiming that the fee should be refunded because the record was not responsive to its request. During the course of mediation, the appellant alleged that an agreement existed between OC Transpo and the institution which excludes the requirement for a circle check. In the appellant's view, this record is responsive to the request and has not been disclosed. The institution maintains that no such record exists. Attempts to mediate this appeal were not successful. Accordingly, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the appellant and the institution. Enclosed with each notice was a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. Written representations were received from the institution and the appellant. ISSUES: A. Whether the institution had an obligation under section 24(2) of the Act to clarify the request with the requester. B. Whether the institution's search for records was reasonable in the circumstances. C. Whether the amount of the fee was calculated in accordance with section 57 of the Act . SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A : Whether the institution had an obligation under section 24(2) of the Act to clarify the request with the requester. As has been stated in a number of previous Orders (Orders 13, 33, 38, and 134), both requesters and institutions have certain obligations with respect to access requests under the Act . These obligations are set out in section 24 with respect to general access requests. Sections 24(1) and (2) read as follows: (1) A person seeking access to a record shall make a request therefor in writing to the institution that the person believes has custody or control of the record and shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record. (2) If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with subsection (1). An institution that receives a broadly worded request has three choices in making its response. It can choose to respond literally to the request, which may involve an institution-wide search for the records requested; it can request further information from the requester in order to narrow its area of search; or it can narrow the search unilaterally. If the third option is chosen, the institution must outline the limits of the search to the appellant. The institution in this case submits that the request was sufficiently detailed, because of the way in which the subject matter, scope and time frame of the request were specified by the appellant. The institution submits that it chose to respond literally to the request, because it considered the request to be quite specific. The appellant's request makes specific reference to circle check inspections, but also requests all records respecting the evolution and drafting of section 7(d) of Regulation 86/89. In addition, the request asks for any relevant minutes retained by the institution's personnel when attending National Safety Code Committee meetings. In my view, the request was sufficiently detailed and clear for the institution to respond to it. There is no apparent ambiguity on the face of the appellant's request, and it is capable of interpretation and response by the institution without clarification. ISSUE B : Whether the institution's search for records was reasonable in the circumstances. The institution submits that its search extended to all relevant records, including minutes and submissions by various interest groups, as well as any relevant minutes of the National Safety Code Committee or the Standing Committee of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs meetings. During the course of mediation, an official of the institution explained to the Appeals Officer that a search of nine different institution offices, the Archives of Ontario, and external organizations was undertaken by the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator for the Safety & Regulation Division, and the results of this search were confirmed through discussions with the Manager of the Motor Carrier Policy Office, the o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 08, 1992
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|