|
On July 8, 1991, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the "Act").
BACKGROUND:
The appellant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "institution") stating that she had been subjected to harassment and differential treatment by her employer.
The institution decided not to request that the Minister appoint a Board of Inquiry to hear the complaint. The appellant was not satisfied with this decision, and requested that the matter be reconsidered by the institution.
On July 5, 1990, the appellant specifically requested access to information or documents contained in her case history file, and in particular, the "Case Disposition sheet".
In addition, the appellant requested an extension of time for her submissions regarding reconsideration until her access request under the Act had been resolved.
The institution contacted the appellant to clarify her request. As a result, the request was narrowed to include only information relied upon by the institution in arriving at its decision not to recommend a Board of Inquiry to hear her complaint. The appellant indicated that her request was to include documents such as:
1) the Case Disposition sheet;
2) the legal opinion containing the recommendations of the institution's Legal Department regarding the case (the "legal opinion"); and,
3) the respondent's submission to the Case Summary.
On July 24, 1990, the institution advised the appellant that access was granted to the "respondent's submission to the Case Summary". She had also previously been provided with a copy of the "Case Summary" which contained the findings of the investigation. Access was denied to the Case Disposition sheet pursuant to sections 13(1), 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, and the legal opinion pursuant to sections 14(1)(a) and (b) and 19 of the Act.
The appellant filed an appeal under the Act on August 21, 1990, claiming that she required access to the Case Disposition sheet and the legal opinion in order to properly exercise her statutory right to make submissions leading to a reconsideration of her Human Rights complaint.
|