|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1867
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-990255-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Human Rights Commission
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: The appellant submitted a request to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to "the complete name, title, company name and address of the anonymous writer of the statement...". This request refers to the OHRC's "letter of December 10, 1997, furnishing me an anonymous and partially blacked-out statement from the respondent, who is conceivably a law professional." The OHRC denied access to the identity of the "anonymous law professional" pursuant to sections 14(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act . The appellant appealed this decision and Appeal PA-990255-1 was opened. During mediation of Appeal PA-990255-1, the appellant clarified that he was seeking access to the identity of the "anonymous human rights lawyer" who had made submissions on behalf of [a named company] in December of 1997. The appellant had filed a complaint against the named company with the OHRC and believed that an anonymous human rights lawyer drafted the respondent's statement but didn't get involved in the investigation. The OHRC contacted the lawyer representing the named company in an attempt to obtain consent to disclosure but the lawyer declined. The Mediator also contacted the lawyer but the lawyer continued to decline to consent to disclosure. The OHRC issued a supplementary decision to the appellant denying access to the name of the lawyer on the basis of section 21(2)(e) of the Act . The OHRC also provided written confirmation to the Mediator that it was only raising the application of section 21(2) with respect to this information. Appeal PA-990255-1 was moved into Inquiry. Adjudicator Holly Big Canoe initiated the inquiry by sending a Notice of Inquiry to the OHRC and the lawyer. Representations were received from both parties. In his representations, the lawyer raised the application of additional discretionary exemptions. After reviewing these representations, Adjudicator Big Canoe decided to seek representations from the appellant. The original Notice was modified to reflect the additional issues arising from the representations of the lawyer. In this regard, the Notice asked the following question: Whether the lawyer is entitled to rely on discretionary exemptions at sections 14(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) not raised by the OHRC. The appellant was invited to comment on the raising of a discretionary exemption by the lawyer. Adjudicator Big Canoe also attached the non-confidential representations of the OHRC to this Notice. In response, the appellant submitted a letter addressed to Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, which the Adjudicator considered as his representations in the matter. The information at issue in Appeal PA-990255-1 consisted of the name, title, firm name and address of the lawyer. Adjudicator Big Canoe disposed of the issues in Appeal PA-990255-1 in Order PO-1787 as follows: the information at issue does not qualify as "personal information", therefore, section 21(1) does not apply; the lawyer may raise the possible application of the discretionary exemption in section 14(1)(e) even though this section was not raised by the OHRC; the information at issue qualifies for exemption under section 14(1)(e); the OHRC must exercise its discretion under section 14(1)(e) of the Act in light of the factual circumstances outlined in the Adjudicator's reasons and any other relevant considerations, and inform the appellant and the lawyer in writing by June 1, 2000 of its decision respecting disclosure. The OHRC issued a decision to the appellant on June 5, 2000 in which it advised him that it was refusing to disclose the information at issue based on "the detailed and convincing evidence provided to the Adjudicator at the [IPC] by the OHRC and the lawyer." The OHRC stated further that: the provision of the subject information regarding the lawyer would enable you to contact him. In light of your history of exhibiting behaviour that could endanger those whom you perceive have not treated you fairly and in light of the OHRC's and the lawyer's belief that you perceive that the lawyer is a prime culprit with respect to your human rights complaint, I believe that the OHRC's reliance on the provision of section 14(1)(e) of the Act is appropriate in these circumstances. NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant subsequently wrote to this office objecting to the OHRC's exercise of discretion in denying him access to the requested information. The appellant also objects to the issuance of the OHRC's decision on June 5 which he indicates "was not issued in conformity with the Order required by June 1, 2000". This office opened a related appeal file, Appeal PA-990255-2, in response to the appellant's objections and streamed the file directly to Adjudication. The issues to be determined in this inquiry are: whether the OHRC issued its decision in conformity with Order PO-1787, and if not, what impact this has on the decision; and whether the head of the OHRC properly exercised his discretion under section 14(1)(e) of the Act . I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the OHRC initially. The OHRC submitted representations in response. I also sought the appellant's representations on the issues in this appeal, and attached the non-confidential portions of the OHRC's representations to the Notice of Inquiry that was sent to him. The appellant was asked to review these representations and to refer to them where appropriate in responding to the issues in the Notice. The appellant submitted representations in response. DISCUSSION: DID THE OHRC ISSUE ITS DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH ORDER PO-1787? The Act establishes a comprehensive scheme for access to information and protection of privacy in the province of Ontario relating to government-held information. This scheme includes a statement of the purposes of the legislation, and provisions regarding the administration of the Act , including the structures and procedures that the
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 15, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|