Document

P-1544

File #  P-9700351
Institution/HIC  Ontario Human Rights Commission
Summary  BACKGROUND: The appellant was a student enrolled in the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto's Department of East Asian Studies in 1991. As part of the course requirements for the Masters program in which she was enrolled, she submitted a paper to her supervising professor. She was unhappy with the grade awarded and initiated the first level of what became a four-stage appeal process in accordance with the University's internal policies. The appellant remained dissatisfied with the resolution of this process and in 1993 initiated a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) alleging that she had been treated in a discriminatory fashion by the University based on her race. Following a lengthy investigation and conciliation, the OHRC decided not to refer the appellant's complaint to a Board of Inquiry under the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code . The appellant's request for a reconsideration of this decision was denied on June 12, 1997 and the OHRC closed its file on the appellant's complaint. NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request to the OHRC under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the contents of her file. The OHRC located a large number of responsive records and, in its first decision letter, granted access to many of them, in whole or in part. Access to other responsive records or parts of records was denied, under the following exemptions contained in the Act : advice or recommendations - section 13(1) law enforcement - section 14(2)(b) invasion of privacy - section 49(b) The appellant appealed the OHRC's decision to deny access to those records or parts of records which were not disclosed. In a second decision letter, the OHRC advised the appellant that it also intended to rely on section 14(1)(c) (law enforcement) and section 20 (danger to safety or health) to deny access to some of the information contained in the records. During the mediation of the appeal, the OHRC decided to disclose additional records, or parts of records, to the appellant. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the OHRC and to eight other individuals whose rights may be affected by the disclosure of the information contained in the records (the affected persons). Representations were received from the OHRC, the appellant and four of the affected persons. The OHRC did not make any submissions on the application of the section 14(2)(b) exemption to the records. As this is not a mandatory exemption, I will not further consider its application in this order. At the inquiry stage of the appeal, the OHRC again disclosed additional records, or parts of records, to the appellant. Accordingly, only 100 pages of documents, in whole or in part, remain at issue. In this order, I will refer to the records using the numbering system used in an index which was provided to this office by the OHRC on January 30, 1998. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LATE RAISING OF DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS In the Confirmation of Appeal notification sent by this office to the OHRC at the time that the appeal was received, it was advised that it would only be able to raise the possible application of discretionary exemptions other than those originally claimed in its November 6, 1997 decision letter until January 9, 1998. The OHRC did not advise the appellant of its intention to rely on sections 14(1)(c) and 20 until January 30, 1998. In the Notice of Inquiry provided to the OHRC, it was asked to make submissions on the reasons why it is claiming discretionary exemptions beyond the date prescribed in the Confirmation of Appeal, as well as the reasons why the discretionary exemptions apply. The OHRC has not provided me with any representations on these issues. The appellant objects to their inclusion as issues under consideration in this appeal. I have reviewed the record, and parts of records for which the OHRC is claiming the application of sections 14(1)(c) and 20. In the circumstances of this appeal, and because of the sensitive nature of the information in these records, I am prepared to consider the application of these exemptions. I am not satisfied that the appellant will suffer any real prejudice should I do so. Particularly with respect to section 20 and because these records deal with very real security concerns, I am inclined to err on the side of caution to ensure that the health or safety of individuals is not put at risk through the disclosure of information which may properly qualify for exemption under these sections. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. I have reviewed the records at issue in the present appeal and make the following findings: 1. The undisclosed portions of Records A-1 and Records A-2, A-12, A-13 and A-18 contain only the personal information of the appellant. 2. The undisclosed portions of Records A-5, A-6, A-7, A-10, B-20, B-21, B-23 and B-24, as well as Records A-4, B-22 and C-28 to C-42 contain the personal information of the appellant and other identifiable individuals. 3. The undisclosed portions of Record C-25 and Records A-3, C-26 and C-27 contain only the personal information of individuals other than the appellant. INVASION OF PRIVACY Section 47(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to their own personal information held by a government body. Section 49 provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access. Under section 49(b) of the Act , where a record contains persona
Legislation
  • FIPPA
  • 14(1)(c)
  • 21(3)(b)
  • Section 20
  • 13(1)
Subject Index
Signed by  Donald Hale
Published  Mar 18, 1998
Type  Order
<< Back
Back to Top
25 Years of Access and Privacy
To search for a specific word or phrase, use quotation marks around each search term. (Example: "smart meter")