|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1963
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010056-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the OPGT) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the following information: Copies, appropriately edited as per the FOI Act, of any releasable documents, memos, letters and reports that refer to persons who have died between April 1, 2000 and June 30, 2000 inclusive, without a known will or with a will that is no longer effective because the beneficiaries of the residue of the estate have either deceased or their whereabouts is unknown; and where the closest next-of-kin of the deceased are unknown. If such documents, referred to in paragraph one, do not exist, then we ask that we be simply provided with the name of the deceased. Following its discussions with the requester, the OPGT confirmed that he was seeking access to: The names of Ontario residents, who have died between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000 inclusive, who passed away without a known will or with a will that is no longer effective because the beneficiaries of the residue of the estate have either pre-deceased the deceased or their whereabouts is unknown, and where the closest next-of-kin of the deceased are unknown. The OPGT also confirmed that the requester sought access only to information pertaining to those estates with a value of more than $100,000. The OPGT then provided the requester with a decision letter indicating that it was prepared to produce a record containing the responsive information upon payment of the sum of $1,290. The requester paid the fee, and the OPGT produced and then denied access to the responsive record, claiming that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Act . The requester, now the appellant, appealed the OPGT's decision to deny access to the record which it created. I initially sought the representations of the OPGT and received its submissions, which I then shared with the appellant, in their entirety. The appellant also made extensive representations which were shared, in part, with the OPGT. The appellant's representations include submissions on the application of the "public interest override" provisions in section 23 as well as a wide range of other issues. His representations also include a great deal of information which did not pertain to the issues extant in this appeal. For this reason, I did not provide all of the appellant's representations to the OPGT. Rather, I decided to provide the OPGT only with those portions of the appellant's representations which specifically addressed the issues before me. In my view, no useful purpose would have been served by sharing all of the appellant's submissions with the OPGT. Additional reply submissions were also made by the OPGT. RECORDS: The sole record at issue in this appeal consists of a list of the names of those estates where the deceased died between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000 valued at more than $100.000, along with the account numbers assigned by the OPGT to each. The list consists of those estates where no next-of-kin had been located as of the date of the creation of the record, February 5, 2001. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Section 2(1) of the Act defines the term "personal information" to mean "recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, any identifying number assigned to the individual (paragraph (c)) and the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual (paragraph (h)). The record in this case contains the names of the deceased persons and the account number assigned to each estate by the OPGT. The list is comprised of those estates having a value of more than $100,000 where the deceased died between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000 and includes those estates where no next of kin has been located. I find that this information qualifies as "personal information" within the meaning of the definition of that term in section 2(1) of the Act . The account numbers, the fact that each estate has been valued at more than $100,000 and the fact that no next of kin had been located, taken together with the names of the deceased persons, qualifies as the personal information of these individuals under paragraphs (c) and (h) of the definition in section 2(1). INVASION OF PRIVACY Having found that the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information" as that term is defined in section 2(1), I must now determine whether it is exempt from disclosure under the mandatory exemption in section 21(1), as submitted by the OPGT. Where a requester seeks personal information of another individual, section 21(1) of the Act prohibits an institution from releasing this information unless one of the exceptions in paragraphs (a) through (f) of section 21(1) applies. In my view, the only possible exception to the prohibition against disclosure in section 21(1) is that described in section 21(1)(f), which reads: A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except, if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Sections 21(2) and (3) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would result in an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individual to whom the information relates. Section 21(2) provides some criteria for the institution to consider in making this determination. Section 21(3) lists the types of information the disclosure of which is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 21(4) refers to certain types of information the disclosure of which does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The Divisional Court has stated that once a presumption against disclosure has been established, it cannot be rebutted by either one or a combination of the factors set out in 21(2) [ John Doe v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 767]. A section 21(3) presumption can be overcome if the personal information at issue falls under section 21(4) of the Act or if a finding is made under section 23 of the Act that a compelling public interest exists in the disclosure of the record in which the personal information is contained which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 21 exemption [Order PO-1764]. If none of the presumptions in section 21(3) applies, the OPGT must consider the application of the factors listed in section 21(2), as well as all other considerations that are relevant in the circumstances of the case. Application of the Section 21(3) Presumptions The OPGT submits that the disclosure of the information contained in the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased persons
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Oct 30, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|