|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-193
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 900297
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , as amended (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) or to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner. On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act . The facts of this case and procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On May 23, 1990, the Stadium Corporation of Ontario Limited (the "institution") received a letter from the requester seeking access to the following information: Appl. Two - Record(s) of Ray Lemberg report(s) on risk management (subject mentioned in April 21/88 Board minutes). Appl. Three - Imagineering Engineering Ltd. evaluation/report(s) on scoreboard options (mentioned in Dec 17/87 Board minutes). 2. In response to both requests (the "first request" and the "second request"), the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") wrote to the requester on June 25, 1990 as follows: Please be advised that we need to extend the time limit to consider your request by sixty-one (61) days to August 27, 1990, under section 27 of the Act. Your request will necessitate a search through a large number of records and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the corporation and require consultations that cannot be completed within the time limit. In addition, please be advised that these records may also contain information affecting third parties under section 17(1) and personal information under section 21, requiring us to obtain representations from affected third parties. 3. The requester appealed the head's decisions by letter to this office dated July 4, 1990. Notice of the appeal was given to the institution and to the appellant. 4. The appeals officer attempted to mediate a settlement of the two requests but none was effected. 5. By letter dated July 31, 1990, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the head's decision was sent to the institution and representations were requested from the institution as to the reasons and the factual basis for its decisions to extend the time to respond to the requests. The appellant was also notified of the inquiry and given the opportunity to comment on the issues raised by the appeal. 6. Representations were received from the institution only and I have considered them in making my Order. The institution's representations relating to the time extensions sought for both requests were almost identical. The sole issue for me to determine in this appeal is whether the extensions of time claimed by the institution as necessary to respond to both requests are reasonable in the circumstances. Subsection 27(1) of the Act states as follows: A head may extend the time limit set out in section 26 for a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances, where, (a) the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution: or, (b) consultations that cannot reasonably be completed within the time limit are necessary to comply with the request. With respect to subsection 27(1)(a), the institution advised that for both requests it searched in "80 file cabinets and storage boxes". The institution also stated that the searches were conducted manually and were "udertaken (sic) over a 4 week period". The institution further advised in its representations that the record responding to the first request was eventually retrieved from inactive files, while the record responding to the second request was retrieved from the consultant who produced it. In its representations, the institution did not indicate the dates upon which the searches were commenced and completed, nor did it state who conducted the searches, what position in the institution that person held, nor whether he/she was familiar with the files to be searched. However, on July 27, 1990, the Appeals Officer was advised by telephone by the Vice-President of Operations of the institution that the Co-ordinator had "transferred" the second request to him, requesting that he conduct a search for the record. This transfer took place on June 24, 1990, one month after the date of the appellant's request to the institution. Further, during a telephone conversation on July 27, 1990, the Appeals Officer was advised by the Co-ordinator that the record responding to the first request was located during the week of July 23, 1990, two months after the request was made. The Co-ordinator also advised the Appeals Officer that the record was then sent to senior management of the institution for a decision, which decision had not been made as of July 27, 1990. With respect to the second part of subsection 27(1)(a), i.e. whether responding to the requests would unreasonably interfere with operations of the institution, for each request the institution advised that: A response to this request within the 30 day time period would have disrupted the normal day to day operations of the company and it is unlikely full and proper consultations could have been completed. In this particular case the work load of key officials would have been altered whereby certain other duties would not have been performed on a timely basis. The institution provided no evidence as to who those "key officials" were or of the precise ways in which their work load "would have been altered" or that "certain other duties would not have been performed on a timely basis". I have reviewed the institution's representations for both requests as they relate to the application of subsection 27(1)(a), and in my view the institution had no justifiable reason for claiming time extensions. I am of the view that the institution has failed to provide sufficient evidence that it dealt with the requests in a timely manner or that meeting the usual 30 day time limit would have unreasonably interfered with the operations of the institution. Instead, the institution's representations and the information provided to the Appe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
27(1)(a)
-
27(1)(b)
-
28(1)
-
Section 26
-
27(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 24, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|