|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1519
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Mississauga
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the City of Mississauga (the City) for access to records containing his personal information, including records that the City would or could use to ban him from City property. The City refused access to the requested information in accordance with section 20.1 of the Act stating that in its view, the appellant's request was vexatious as contemplated by section 4(1)(b) of the Act . The appellant appealed this decision. During mediation of the appeal, the appellant indicated that he believed the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator (the FOIC) is in a conflict of interest in handling both his access request and this appeal. The appellant believed the City Clerk would also be in a conflict of interest position if he were to replace the Co-ordinator on this file. In this regard, the appellant stated that both the Co-ordinator and the Clerk have threatened legal action against him. In support of his position in this regard, the appellant provided this office with several pieces of correspondence relating to matters between him and these two City staff. The appellant also clarified that he is not interested in accessing records which were provided to him in response to previous access requests. Further mediation could not be effected and this matter proceeded to inquiry. I decided to seek representations from the City initially, and sent it a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues at inquiry. The City submitted representations in response. I subsequently sought representations from the appellant, and attached the non-confidential portions of the City's submissions to the copy of the Notice of Inquiry that I sent to him. Upon receipt of the Notice of Inquiry, the appellant submitted a series of letters to this office, covering a range of topics including: criticism of the process; asking questions or making demands unrelated to the inquiry process; and seeking information relating to previous appeals. After being provided with a deadline for the receipt of representations, the appellant submitted extensive representations in response. From that point on, he has continued to send in bits and pieces of information, comments and other "evidence" which he asks that I add to the submissions he made. CONCLUSION: I find the appellant's request to be frivolous and vexatious in the circumstances and dismiss this appeal. BACKGROUND: The appellant has a long history of dealings with the City, much of it rife with conflict, with respect to general interaction with City staff and members of Council and in the context of making access requests. In order to put the City's decision, and ultimately my findings in this order, into perspective, it is necessary to review this history in some detail, insofar as it pertains to access requests under the Act . Past history of requests under the Act In the past, much of the appellant's contact with the City revolved around issues relating to the Cawthra Woodlot and the Woodlot Management Program. A number of these previous interactions culminated in the issuance of Order M-947 in June 1997, wherein former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg concluded, among other things, that the requests at issue in those appeals were frivolous or vexatious. Order M-947 In this order, the former Adjudicator found, in part, that the "nature, frequency and practice of submitting numerous duplicative requests" constituted a "pattern of conduct" as that phrase has been interpreted by this office. She acknowledged that the appellant likely had a legitimate interest in the records being requested in those appeals. However, she found that "very shortly after these requests began, the appellant's conduct with respect to the City became 'an abuse of the right of access' …". Further on this point, the former Adjudicator noted that: [t]he rights afforded the public to access under the Act are accompanied by concomitant responsibilities on the part of requesters. One of these responsibilities is working in tandem with the institution to further the purposes of the Act . In rare cases, actions on the part of an appellant which frustrate this approach can be said to be an abuse of this process. In this case, the actions of the appellant in dealing with the City's staff, both in its Freedom of Information office and elsewhere, have not exhibited any attempt to work constructively with the City to resolve his requests, and, in fact, demonstrate the opposite. Despite the City's attempts to accommodate the appellant, both within and outside the formal processes of the Act , he has responded in an uncooperative and harassing manner to those who have attempted to assist him. In my opinion, this type of conduct on the part of the appellant is relevant to a finding that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 05, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|