|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-666
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Municipality of Clarington
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: On February 20, 1995, the appellant's two dogs were shot in the Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality). One dog was killed, and the other wounded. Animal Control responded to a call to pick up the dogs. A farmer allegedly shot the dogs because they were killing or injuring his livestock. The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Municipality for access to the written report of the incident prepared by Animal Control. The appellant indicated that she sought access to information identifying the address at which the dogs were picked up, the time at which Animal Control was contacted and the time at which they arrived to pick up the dogs, the name and address of the individual who shot the dogs as well as a description of the circumstances in which the animals were shot. The appellant also requested access to information related to the calculation and payment of damages that she paid to the Municipality. Finally, she requested copies of any written policies or procedures related to the role and responsibilities of Animal Control in these circumstances. The Municipality provided the appellant with certain responsive records. It removed information related to the identity of the farmer under the following exemptions in the Act : law enforcement - section 8(1)(d) invasion of privacy - section 14 At that time, the Municipality advised the appellant that it would contact the farmer to determine if he or she would consent to the disclosure of his or her identity. The farmer did not respond to the Municipality. The appellant filed an appeal of the Municipality's decision to deny access to the information related to the identity of the farmer. She also claimed that more responsive records should exist. In addition, she claimed that a public interest exists in the disclosure of all of the information at issue, thereby raising the application of section 16 of the Act . A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Municipality, the appellant and the farmer. Because the records appeared to contain the personal information of the appellant, the parties were asked to comment on the applicability of sections 38(a) and (b) of the Act . Section 38(a) provides an institution with the discretion to refuse to disclose an individual's personal information if certain other exemptions, including section 8(1)(d), would apply. Section 38(b) provides an institution with the discretion to refuse to disclose an individual's own personal information if such disclosure would result in an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy. Subsequently, the Municipality identified more information as being responsive to the request. It located another record, an excerpt from the daily occurrence book (the DOB). The Municipality disclosed portions of this record to the appellant, without the name of the farmer. The Municipality also indicated that certain portions of this document were not responsive to the request. The Ministry also disclosed additional information contained in a note taken on February 25, 1995 by the supervisor of the Animal Control Officers (the Supervisor). Again, it refused to disclose the identity of the farmer. The appellant objected to the decision of the Municipality to withhold portions of these documents. She also disputed the Municipality's claim that certain portions of the DOB were not responsive to the request. As the appellant and the Municipality agreed that it would be expedient to simultaneously resolve all the issues arising in this appeal, a Supplementary Notice of Inquiry was sent to all the parties. The Notice sought submissions from the parties on the newly-raised issues. In summary, the following are the issues which are raised in this appeal and which I will consider in this order: (1) Whether those parts of the DOB which the Municipality states are non-responsive to the request are, in fact, responsive to the request. (2) Whether the Municipality conducted a reasonable search to locate the records responsive to the request. (3) Whether the Municipality properly withheld information about the identity of the farmer under sections 8(1)(d), 38(a) and/or (b) from the following records: (a) the notes of the Animal Control Officer (the ACO's notes), (b) the copy of the receipt signed by the farmer (the receipt), (c) the copy of the note taken by the Supervisor of the Animal Control Officers (the Supervisor's notes); and (d) the copy of the excerpt(s) from the DOB for the time period spanning the incident described in the request. (4) If the Municipality properly applied the invasion of privacy exemption to the information related to the identity of the farmer, whether there exists a public interest in disclosure of this information under section 16. I have received representations from the Municipality and the appellant on all of these issues. The submissions of these parties were prepared by their respective counsel. I have not received any submissions from the farmer. DISCUSSION: NON-RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS The appellant submits that those portions of the DOB which the Municipality has claimed are not responsive to her request are, in fact, responsive. She bases this submission on the belief that these portions may contain information which would indicate the time the Animal Control Officer (the ACO) received the call from the farmer, as well as the times at which the dogs were picked up from the property and brought to the animal shelter. The Municipality has provided me with those portions of the DOB which were not disclosed to the appellant. The Municipality has also explained that this book is kept by the Municipality's ACOs and is intended to be a record of all the calls received by the officers. The calls are noted in numerical order of receipt and the date is set out in the book before the first call received each day. Those portions of the DOB which were not disclosed chronicle the other calls received by the ACOs on February 20, 1995, the date the dogs were shot. They record incidents that are not related or connected in any way to the appellant and/or the dogs. They do not contain any of the information which the appellant suggests may be recorded therein, that is the tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(3)(b)
-
14(3)(f)
-
Section 16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 14, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|