|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2079
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010399-2 and PA-020042-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: These matters are two appeals from decisions of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the OCCOPS), acting through the Ministry of Public Safety and Security (the Ministry) (formerly the Ministry of the Solicitor General), and made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). As the appellant and the institution are the same in both appeals, and many of the issues overlap, I have decided to issue a common order with respect to the two appeals. The requester, now the appellant, sought the correction of certain information contained in two particular files at the OCCOPS. His requests to the Ministry set out suggested wording to replace the portions in the records said to be in error or containing omissions. In the alternative, the appellant asked that the Ministry attach his correction request letters to the OCCOPS files in question as a statement of disagreement. The Ministry issued a decision with respect to each of the two correction requests stating that there were insufficient grounds for making a correction to the records at issue as no errors or omissions were evident in the records. In each decision, the Ministry advised the appellant that his statement of disagreement was added to the case file. In one case, it stated that the three OCCOPS members who had access to the records were made aware of this statement and in the other, that the responsible OCCOPS staff had been made aware of it. The appellant has appealed each of these decisions. The information which the appellant seeks to have corrected is contained in two Case Summary reports of the OCCOPS with a "Date of Review" of December 21, 2000 and August 13, 2001, respectively. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, initially, inviting him to make representations on the facts and issues raised by this appeal. The appellant provided representations dated September 24, 2002 for each appeal, each accompanied by a number of attachments. He also submitted an additional letter dated September 25, 2002, containing some clarifications to his earlier representations, and a letter of September 27, 2002 containing further clarifications. Upon reviewing the appellant's representations, I have decided that it is unnecessary to seek the response of the OCCOPS to them. DISCUSSION: DOES THE RECORD CONTAIN THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF THE APPELLANT? Sections 47(2)(a) and (b) of the Act provide for correction requests and statements of disagreement relating to one's own personal information . These sections state: Every individual who is given access under subsection (1) to personal information is entitled to, (a) request correction of the personal information where the individual believes there is an error or omission therein; (b) require that a statement of disagreement be attached to the information reflecting any correction that was requested but not made; and Section 2(1) of the Act provides, in part, that "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual. The records in question are, as stated above, two Case Summary reports of the OCCOPS. They summarize a public complaint made by the appellant against the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service (the Police) (now the Hamilton Police Service). The Case Summary of December 21, 2000 deals with the decision of the Chief of Police (through a designate) not to process the appellant's public complaint because of its view that it was made more than six months after the event. The Case Summary notes that the decision of the review panel was to direct the Police to process the appellant's complaint. The Case Summary of August 13, 2001 deals with the appellant's subsequent request for review of the decision made by the Chief's designate on his complaint, in which the Police decide that no further action is warranted. I am satisfied, generally, that the records contain the personal information of the appellant. Although certain aspects of the records are not the personal information of the appellant (for instance, information about the members of the review panels), the portions to which the appellant seeks correction contain his personal information. SHOULD THE PERSONAL INFORMATION BE CORRECTED? There is a difference in wording between sections 47(2)(a) and (b) which, in my view, is significant. Section 47(2)(a) indicates that individuals may request correction of their personal information, while section 47(2)(b) indicates that individuals may require a statement of disagreement to be attached to a record reflecting any correction requested but not made. In particular, because section 47(2)(a) only provides a right to request a correction, it gives the Police a discretionary power to accept or reject the correction request. I am reinforced in the view that section 47(2)(a) confers a discretionary power on the Police by the wording of section 47(2)(b), which compensates for the Police's discretion to refuse a correction request under section 47(2)(a) by allowing individuals who do not receive favourable responses to correction requests to require that a statement of disagreement be attached instead (see Order MO-1518). I am also reinforced in this view by the discussion in Public Government for Private People: The Report of the Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy 1980 , vol. 2 (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1980) (the Williams Commission), at pages 709-710: Although the report refers to the individual's "right" to correct a file, we do not feel that this right should be considered absolute. Thus, although we recommend rights of appeal with respect to correction requests, agencies should not be under an absolute duty to undertake investigations with a view to correcting records in response to each and every correction request. The privacy protection schemes which we have examined adopt what we feel to be appropriate mechanisms for permitting the individual to file a statement of disagreement in situations where the governmental institution does not wish to alter its record. In particular cases, an elaborate inquiry to determine the truth of the point in dispute may incur an expense which the institution quite reasonably does not wish to bear. Moreover, the precise criteria for determining whether a particular item of information is accurate or complete or relevant to the purpose for which it is kept may be a matter on which the institution and the individual data subject have reasonable differences of opinion. (emphasis added) If the request for correction is denied, the individual must be permitted to file a statement indicating the nature of his disagreement. We recommend that an individual who has been denied a requested correction may exercise rights of appeal to an independent tribunal. The tribunal, in turn, could order correction of the file or simply leave the individual to exercise his right to file a statement of disagreement. Within this context
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sherry Liang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 29, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|