|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1501
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Township of King
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal from a decision of the Township of King (the Township), made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester (now the appellant) had sought access to: copies of the 41 survey forms from the King City Septic Survey conducted by (two named consultants) in 1994. These 41 forms were identified as responding to question D18(b) of the funding application submitted to the Ministry of Environment, October 27, 1997. I understand that due to the confidentiality of the Survey, personal information, that is the names, telephone numbers, signatures of the individuals and the street numbers will not be shown. In its decision, the Township indicated that it had obtained the records from one of the consultants. It also noted that the appellant has already obtained access to these surveys from another institution, as part of a larger group of surveys, with street numbers and names severed. The Township denied access to the records, relying on the mandatory exemptions in sections 10(1)(b) and (c) of the Act (third party information), the mandatory exemption in section 14(1) (unjustified invasion of personal privacy), and the discretionary exemption in section 15 (available to the public). The appellant appealed the decision of the Township. During mediation through this office, the issues were narrowed to the exemption in section 10(1)(b) of the Act. In this appeal, the appellant also challenges the responsiveness of the records, in that although she requested 41 specific survey forms, 52 have been identified. It should be noted that some of the background of this request is described in Order MO-1251. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Township initially, asking for its representations on the issues and facts raised by the appeal. These representations were sent to the appellant, with the exception of a portion withheld for confidentiality reasons, and the appellant has provided representations in response. RECORDS: The records at issue consist of 52 survey forms, completed in handwriting. The information on the surveys includes the date on which it was completed, the street name of the residence or business surveyed, length of occupancy, particulars about the property, and details about the state and working order of the septic system on the property. Any names, signatures, telephone numbers and street numbers have been severed from the records. DISCUSSION: RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS Previous orders of the Commissioner have established that in order to be responsive, a record must be "reasonably related" to the request. Former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg canvassed the issue of responsiveness of records in detail in Order P-880. In applying the direction provided by the Divisional Court in Ontario (Attorney-General) v. Fineberg (1994), 19 O.R. (3rd) 197, she concluded: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents are relevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to a request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The request itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimately be identified as being responsive to the request. I am of the view that, in the context of freedom of information legislation, "relevancy" must mean "responsiveness". That is, by asking whether information is "relevant" to a request, one is really asking whether it is "responsive" to a request. While it is admittedly difficult to provide a precise definition of "relevancy" or "responsiveness", I believe that the term describes anything that is reasonably related to the request. In the case before me, the request has its genesis in a Provincial Water Protection Fund Application submitted by the Township to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in either late 1997 or early 1998. Question D18 of that survey deals with septic tank dwellings. Question D18(b) consists of a table setting out details of septic tank problems in the area. In this table, the Township has identified that there are 41 dwellings with septic tank sewage problems. As set out above, the appellant has requested access to the "41 forms … identified as responding to question D18(b) of the funding application". In responding to this request, the Township in turn wrote to the consultant which collected the information for the purposes of the funding application, asking for the records and quoting the appellant's request. This consultant sent the Township the 52 surveys which now constitute the records at issue in this appeal. In its letter, a copy of which was sent to the appellant by the Township, the consultant states,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 23, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|