|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1939
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000323-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 requested information and appeal PA-000255-1 was opened. Adjudicator Holly Big Canoe disposed of the issues in this appeal in Order PO-1787. She found, in part, that the information at issue qualified for exemption under the discretionary exemption in section 14(1)(e) (danger to life or safety) of the Act . As section 14(1)(e) had not been raised by it, she ordered the OHRC to exercise its discretion under that section and to inform the parties of its decision. The OHRC issued a decision to the appellant indicating that it had exercised its discretion under section 14(1)(e) in favour of non-disclosure. The appellant appealed this decision and Appeal PA-990255-2 was opened. I was assigned to adjudicate the issues raised in this appeal. At inquiry, I sought representations from the OHRC initially. I subsequently sent the non-confidential portions of them to the appellant along with a Notice of Inquiry and sought his representations on the issues in that appeal. In doing so, I withheld two statements which the OHRC had attached to its representations on the basis of confidentiality concerns expressed by the OHRC. I disposed of the issues in Appeal PA-990255-2 in Order PO-1867. NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Upon receipt of its representations relating to Appeal PA-990255-2, the appellant submitted a request to the OHRC under the Act for access to: Two mediation staff reports to IPC recording my past behaviour and continuing propensity of such type of behaviour mentioned in your letter dated July 26, 2000. [A named individual's] response to my complaint under TI-98-0049(a) Section 34 Case Analysis. [A named individual's] response to my complaint under TI-98-0049(b) Section 34 Case Analysis. [A named individual's] response to my complaint under TI-99-0056 Section 34 Case Analysis. [A named individual's] response to my complaint under TI-99-0059 Section 34 Case Analysis. The OHRC responded to this request and granted access to items 2, 3 and 4 (responses to cases TI-98-0049 (a) and (b), as well as TI-99-0056). With regard to item 5 of the request (response to case TI-99-0059), the OHRC advised that access could not be granted since no response was composed. Finally, the OHRC denied access to item 1 of the request (staff reports to the IPC), pursuant to section 20 (threat to health or safety) of the Act . The appellant appealed the OHRC's decision that no response was composed (item 5), as well as the denial of access to the staff reports (item 1). During the intake stage of this appeal, an intake analyst dismissed the appellant's appeal relating to item 5 since, in her view, the requester did not provide a reasonable basis for concluding that a responsive record exists. During mediation, the appellant indicated that he had not received [a named individual's] response to TI-98-0049(b) from the OHRC (item 3 of the request). The OHRC advised the mediator that the same document is responsive to items 2 and 3 and that there are no additional documents pertaining to item 3. The appellant maintains that a separate response was composed, and that additional documents should exist for item 3. The appellant also indicated that he wished to pursue the matter regarding the existence of a record responsive to item 5. As I noted above, during the intake stage of this appeal, an intake analyst dismissed the requester's appeal relating to item 5 since, in her view, the requester did not provide a reasonable basis for concluding that a responsive record exists. The Commissioner has delegated the authority to the Intake Analyst to decide whether or not an appeal should proceed through the appeal process or be dismissed. Prior to issuing her decision to dismiss the appeal with respect to item 5, the Intake Analyst gave the appellant an opportunity to provide her with written submissions to explain why he believes records responsive to item 5 exist. As a decision regarding item 5 has already been issued by this office at an earlier stage of this appeal, I will not deal with it further in this order. However, I determined that the issue of the existence of additional records responsive to item 3 had not been previously dealt with, and decided to address it as an issue in this appeal. I sought representations from the OHRC and affected persons, initially. In addition to the exemption in section 20, I asked the parties to consider the possible application of the discretionary exemptions in sections 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester's own information) and 49(b) (invasion of privacy). The OHRC replied on its own behalf and on behalf of the affected persons. The OHRC's representations address the Reasonableness of Search issue, but do not refer to sections 20, 49(a) or 49(b). I subsequently decided to seek representations from the appellant. In doing so, I put the appellant on notice that, in addition to the information submitted by the OHRC in this appeal, I was contemplating taking into consideration several categories of information of which I am aware as a result of the numerous appeals the appellant has filed with this office, including those with which I have dealt. I then set out, in detail, the specific evidence which might be relevant. In responding to the issues in this appeal, I invited the appellant to: address the incorporation of this evidence into the current appeal; and explain why he believes the circumstances in the current appeal warrant a different approach. The appellant submitted represen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 21, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|