|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1940
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000247-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Human Rights Commission
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: 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 copies of the minutes of an OHRC meeting relating to four cases in which the appellant had filed complaints against four named staff members. The OHRC granted partial access to the records requested, severing the names of the commissioners present at the meeting and the name of one staff person (the affected persons), from the minutes of the OHRC meeting. No exemptions were cited in the original decision letter. In a revised decision, the OHRC indicated that it was relying on section 20 (threat to health and safety) of the Act in refusing to provide the appellant with the names of the affected persons. The appellant appealed the OHRC's decision to sever the names of the affected persons from the OHRC meeting minutes. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the OHRC and affected persons, initially. Because it appeared that the record may contain the personal information of the appellant, I asked the parties to also consider the possible application of section 49(a) to the record. The OHRC replied, on its own behalf and on behalf of the affected persons, as follows: This refusal does not impede the complainant's ability to any appeal or judicial recourse. The Commission does not see any justifiable need for the individual to have access to the names of those present at the meeting, other than to possibly harass those individuals. The Commission's position is entirely consistent with a decision previously taken by the IPC, with regard to a previous FOI request (by the same complainant) to release the names of legal counsel acting on behalf of respondents in this case. The IPC ruled that no access to the names would be granted (Appeal PA-990255-1, Order PO-1787). In raising the relevancy of the circumstances in appeal PA-990255-1, the OHRC appears to be relying on the evidence that was before the Adjudicator in that appeal. 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 representations in response. RECORDS: The record at issue in this appeal consists of the minutes of an OHRC Meeting dated May 31, 2000, relating to four cases in which the requester had filed complaints against four named OHRC staff members. The only information at issue is the names of the affected persons which have been severed from this record. The appellant had originally requested "disclosure of Commission's Meeting Records for my Decisions Dated June 9, 2000. . . . .". The standard form "reasons" for the decisions in question were dated June 9, 2000, but the actual records of the Commission's meeting were the minutes of the meeting, dated May 31, 2000. The OHRC's revised decision of August 15, 2000 mistakenly refers to the minutes as being dated June 9, 2000. The records which the parties have indicated are the responsive records in this appeal, are the minutes of the OHRC meeting dated May 31, 2000. PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE EVIDENCE THAT I INTEND TO CONSIDER IN THIS APPEAL In the Notice of Inquiry that I sent to the appellant, I advised him that I am considering incorporating the evidence submitted in appeal PA-990255-1 into the current appeal. I noted further that the appellant has filed several other appeals in connection with the issues in Appeal PA-990255-1 and, indirectly, the issues in the current appeal. I indicated that I had reviewed all of these appeal files and any orders or decisions resulting from them. In doing so, I concluded that the evidence submitted in these appeals and the findings in their related orders may be relevant in the circumstances of the current appeal. My reasons for contemplating considering the inclusion of all of this evidence were set out in the Notice of Inquiry that was sent to the appellant and, as I indicated above, he was given an opportunity to address this issue in detail. In responding to the Notice of Inquiry, the appellant writes: As the above Appeal has nothing to do with the deceased PA-990255-1, PA-000156-1& PA-000157-1, PA-000232-1, PA-000210-1, PA-990255-2 and the now separately-inquired PA-000323-1, I am not going to participate in IPC recycled screenplays with its expertise of universal relevancy theory to recycle the now-defunct appeals except the living PA-000247-1 currently being inquired... In a separate letter to Commissioner Ann Cavoukian (which was forwarded to my attention as it appeared to respond to the issues in this appeal), the appellant states: Each of my Appeals has its independent objective. Should there be some relevancy, it would be PA-990255-1, PA-000232-1 and PA-990255-2, in which the identity of Bi-Way anonymous human rights lawyer were sought. But, they are all dead with no miracle to be resurrected. I won't be an actor to act for your adjudicator in her recycled screenplays. I have enough with my Appeals to be dumped into your recycle bins and retrieved to recycle again and again in the past two years. What a freaky information watchdog! Your adjudicator is acting as a veterinarian to tell me that my five horses died months or a year ago can be resuscitated to start breathing again and, also, trying to replace two of my surviving horses with donkeys for me to ride in the racetrack. I realize your adjudicator is poised to revive one of the dead horses to provide me with a dreaming horse I am after until the time when racing season is over and the racetrack is closed. In Brown & Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (Vol. 2), (Toronto: Canvasback Publishing, 1998) (looseleaf), the authors discuss the principle of "fairness" in the administrative decision-making process (at Chap. 12 - 1): Traditionally, procedural fairness has been viewed to pertain to the parties' right to an effective opportunity to participate in the decision-making process through the presentation of evidence and argument, and through the requirement of impartiality in the decision-maker. In addition, there are other aspects of the law which are designed to prevent the conduct of the tribunal from undermining the participatory rights required by the duty of procedural fairness … These principles and rules relate to five related aspects of the decision-making process: [including] the gathering of information … They also comment on the extent to which administrative adjudicators may make use of information not adduced by the parties to a proceeding (at Chap. 12 - 2 to 4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 23, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|