|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Corporation of the City of Mississauga (the City) received two requests pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , (the Act ). One, "Request 7", was a request for general information, the specific details of which were outlined in Appendices A, B and C of the request. The other, "Request 8", was a request for personal information, the specific details of which were outlined in Appendices A, B and C of the request. The City granted the requester partial access to the information responding to Appendix B of Request 7, and Appendix C of Request 8. In its decision letter, the City advised the requester that it was refusing to confirm or deny the existence of a record responding to Appendix A and C of Request 7 and Appendix A and B of Request 8, pursuant to section 8(3) of the Act . The City claimed that if such a record existed, it would be exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and 8(2)(c). The requester appealed the City's decision. Notice of the appeal was given to the City and the appellant. An Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal and attempt to mediate a settlement. During the course of mediation, the City agreed to provide the appellant with additional information responsive to Appendix B of Request 7, and Appendix C of Request 8. As a result, all of the issues relating to these appendices have been resolved. Remaining at issue in this appeal is the City's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record which may respond to Request 7, Appendix A and C and Request 8, Appendix A and B. In Appendix A and C of Request 7, the appellant is seeking information relating to: the development and implementation of policy guidelines regarding the use of private investigation services by the City; a copy of the policy or guidelines authorizing the use of investigative services and statistical information on the use of these services. In Appendix A and B of Request 8, the appellant is seeking access to any record relating to the use of investigative services in his case. He is also seeking all investigation reports produced about him for the City by private investigators. In his original requests and in a subsequent conversation with the Appeals Officer, the appellant indicated that he is not seeking identifying information of any individuals including information relating to employees of the City, past or present, who have been investigated or to names of private investigation firms or their employees. Therefore, if a record exists, this type of information is not in issue in this appeal. As further mediation was not possible, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the City's decision was sent to the appellant and the City. An Appeals Officer's Report, which is intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of appeal, accompanied the Notice of Inquiry. Written representations were received from the appellant and the City. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether a record of the nature requested, if it existed, would qualify for exemption under either section 8(1) or (2) of the Act . B. Whether the City properly exercised its discretion under section 8(3) of the Act to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record of the nature requested. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether a record of the nature requested, if it existed, would qualify for exemption under either section 8(1) or (2) of the Act . In an appeal from a decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record, great care is taken not to disclose the fact of whether or not a record exists. The correctness of the decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record is an issue to be determined on appeal. Obviously, premature disclosure of the existence of any record would render this part of the appeal moot. As a result, it can be difficult to give reasons for my decision, particularly where the decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record is upheld. In the present appeal, I feel compelled to state my conclusion at the beginning, so that I might provide a fuller explanation of my decision. Accordingly, I confirm that a record exists which is responsive to the appellant's request. Having confirmed the existence of a record, it can be inferred that I have concluded that the record may not be withheld from disclosure pursuant to section 8(1) or (2) of the Act , a condition which must be satisfied before the City may even consider whether to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are set out below. The record consists of 30 pages (pages 1-30) and contains the following kinds of information: an internal memorandum relating to the use of investigative services, investigation reports submitted to the City by a private investigator, notes on the history of the use of private investigators by the City, a "Corporate Report" to the Mayor and members of council relating to the investigation of the appellant, a "Summary of Investigations" carried out on behalf of the City, and, "Guidelines" for the use of investigative services. Page 9 of the record is a duplicate of page 2. The City has claimed that sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and 8(2)(c) of the Act apply to the record. These sections provide: (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, (a) interfere with a law enforcement matter; (b) interfere with an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result; (c) reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use or likely to be used in law enforcement; (d) disclose the identity of a confidential source of information in respect of a law enforcement matter, or disclose information furnished only by the confidential source; (g) interfere with the gathering of or reveal law enforcement intelligence information respecting organizations or persons; (2) A head may refuse to disclose a record, (c) that is a law enforcement record if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the author of the record
|