|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1497
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Mississauga
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND On June 4, 1997, former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg issued Order M-947, which dealt with 26 appeals stemming from requests made by the same individual to the City of Mississauga (the City) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The City had denied access to 14 of the appellant's requests on the basis that they were frivolous and vexatious, as provided in section 4(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 823 made under the Act . After conducting an inquiry, Adjudicator Fineberg upheld the City's decision with respect to two of these requests. In so doing, she included a provision in Order M-947 that imposed conditions on future requests and appeals from that appellant. Specifically, Provision 3 of her order stated: I impose the following conditions on processing any requests and appeals from the appellant now and for a specified time in the future: (a) For a period of one year following the date of this order, I am imposing a one (1) transaction limit on the number of requests and/or appeals that the City is required under the Act to process at any one point in time. For greater certainty, this transaction limit refers to each part of a request or an appeal which is to be considered as one (1) transaction. In addition, the City is only required to process a maximum of five (5) requests and/or appeals in any one year. (b) Within two weeks of the date of this order, the appellant may advise this office if he wishes to proceed with his one outstanding "banked" appeal, in accordance with the limits set out in clause (a). (c) The terms of this order will apply to any requests and appeals made by the appellant or by any individual, person, organization or entity found to be acting on his behalf or under his direction. (d) At the conclusion of one year from the date of this order, the appellant, and/or the City or any person affected by this order, may apply to this office to seek to vary the terms of paragraph 3 of this order, failing which its terms shall continue in effect from year to year. To date, no party in Order M-947 has applied to this office to vary the terms of Provision 3 so, in accordance with paragraph (d), the terms continue. NATURE OF THE APPEAL The City received a request under the Act for access to the following: A copy of information where reference is made to the Walled Garden in the Cawthra Woods. Safety issues regarding the Walled Garden are the main focus of this request but please list all records that refer to the Walled Garden, including reports, memos, notes by staff and e-mails. Search City records from Sept. 2000 to present. In order to make this a cost effective search, a list of persons is provided to aid you. Please provide a list of records found. I am open to any suggestions on making this request cost effective. For this information please be sure to contact [five named City employees, together with their job titles]. The City denied access to the responsive records citing Order Provision 3(c) of Order M-947. The City clarified its decision by stating: For your information, the provisions of [Order M-947] are being applied because we have reason to believe that you are acting on behalf or under the direction of the individual who is the subject of Order M-947 and who currently has an active request/appeal under [the Act ]. The requester appealed the City's decision. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the City, seeking representations to support its position that the requester in the current appeal is acting on behalf of or under the direction of the appellant in Order M-947, and to provide evidence that this other appellant currently has an active request/appeal under the Act . The City submitted representations, which I then shared with the requester. The requester provided representations in response. ISSUE: The sole issue in this appeal is whether the requester is acting on behalf of or under the direction of the appellant in Order M-947 (the "original appellant"). DISCUSSION: The City confirmed that the original appellant has one outstanding request (City reference 00018-2001), and one unresolved appeal with this office (Appeal MA-010057-1). The City's explains in its representations that during a seven-month period ending in July 2001, it received six separate requests from three different individuals, all relating to Cawthra Bush, Jefferson Salamander and/or the Walled Garden area of Cawthra Woods. One of these requesters is also the requester in the current appeal. The City explains that these requests were similar in scope and nature to others submitted in the past by the original appellant. The City
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 24, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|