|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2109
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-020194-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to "… the names and addresses of all tenants whose landlords have filed an application to evict with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal in the months of May and June 2002", as well as the relevant hearing dates and locations. The requester also wanted this information to be provided to him on a weekly basis. ORHT responded to the request as follows: You have requested that [ORHT] create a custom weekly report setting out the names and addresses of all tenants whose landlords have filed an application for eviction with [ORHT], and the hearing dates and hearing locations for those applications. In the past, we have created custom reports for commercial clients without requiring a request [under the Act ]. However, the programming and continuing production of these reports places a very large burden on [ORHT's] limited system resources. Therefore, as we have indicated in previous discussions, [ORHT] is currently reviewing its process for responding to requests of this nature. As a result of this review, it is likely that [ORHT] will publish standard reports containing information such as that which you have requested. Therefore, pursuant to section 22 of [the Act ], which allows an institution to refuse to disclose a record on the grounds that there is a reasonable expectation that the record will be published within 90 days, I am denying your request. The requester, now the appellant, appealed OHRT's decision. During the mediation stage of the appeal, an issue arose concerning ORHT's practice of disclosing the "custom reports" referred to in its decision letter. Having reviewed a sample report, the Mediator identified that it contains what appears to be the personal information of tenants (ie. names, addresses, and the fact that they may be arrears of rent). Accordingly, the Mediator raised the possible application of the mandatory exemption in section 21 of the Act (invasion of privacy) to the type of information ORHT intended to disclose to the appellant. Mediation did not resolve the appeal, so it was transferred to the adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to ORHT, initially, asking for written representations on the application of the exemptions in section 21 and 22 of the Act . ORHT submitted representations, which were in turn shared with the appellant, along with the Notice of Inquiry. The appellant chose not to provide representations. RECORDS: There is no existing record at issue in this appeal. As noted, OHRT advised the appellant that it intended to create a responsive record within 90 days of the request, and described the contents of this record in general terms. The sample custom report provided to this office is similar in nature to the type of record requested by the appellant. This report contains the following categories of information: case number, filing date, case type, first name, last name, address, postal code, telephone number, party type (i.e., landlord or tenant), and amount of arrears. The appellant's request identifies a number of these categories of information (eg. names and addresses of tenants) and, although my decisions in this order could potentially have general application to other categories of information contained in the various custom reports produced by ORHT (eg. telephone number, amount of arrears), I will restrict my findings in this appeal to the categories of information identified by the appellant in his request. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Personal information is defined in section 2 of the Act , in part, as follows: "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, (b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved, …. (d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual, …. (h) the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual; The requested record would contain the names and addresses of individual tenants who are the subject of applications before ORHT, and would also reveal the fact that they are alleged to be in arrears of rent. OHRT submits that this information falls within the scope of the definition of "personal information" in section 2(1) of the Act , and I find that it clearly does. INVASION OF PRIVACY Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 21 of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this information unless one of the exceptions identified in section 21(1) applies. ORHT relies on the exception in section 21(1)(c), which reads: A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except, personal information collected and maintained specifically for the purpose of creating a record available to the general public; ORHT submits: In making information contained in [ORHT] applications available to the public, [ORHT] relies on section 9 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act (the SPPA ), which sets out that tribunal hearings shall be open to the public. Based on this provision of the SPPA , senior management of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing decided, when planning the implementation of the Tenant Protection Act ( TPA ), that the public should be allowed full access to tribunal files. They also considered that similar information was available to the public under the Rent Control Act , and through the courts under the Landlord and Tenant Act (the two pieces of legislation that applied to landlord and tenant disputes prior to the introduction of the TPA ). The personal information that is contained in the reports referred to above is obtained from applications filed under the TPA . [ORHT] application forms include a notice under subsection 39(2) of the Act , and inform the applicant that the information may become public. Based on the above, when requests were made by clients to develop custom reports of tribunal data, [ORHT] determined that information contained in those reports could be disclosed pursuant to clause 21(1)(c) of the Act . Clients were not required to make a request under the Act . Clients were required, however, to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with [ORHT] which set out the terms and conditions under which the Tribunal could provide the data. Clients paid a fee of $100.00 for the computer programming required to develop the reports, and a further $100.00 for each report sent. OHRT provided me with a sample Memorandum of Understanding. This office has issued a number of orders and privacy investigation reports d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 07, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|