|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1180
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-980126-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The Police Services Act requires every regional municipality to provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs. This responsibility may be discharged in a number of ways, including by establishing a local police force or by contracting with the Solicitor General for the provision of services by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). In the fall of 1996 the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (the Region) began to investigate the possibility of moving from a shared service arrangement, by which the OPP and the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Service (HNRP) provided police services to the Region, to a single service arrangement whereby one or the other of the forces would provide region-wide services. Upon the Region's request, the HNRP and the OPP submitted proposals for providing region-wide services. In September 1997 the Region decided to enter into a contract with the OPP for this service. In late 1997, the Haldimand-Norfolk Police Association (the Association) applied to the Ontario Court (General Division) Divisional Court for a judicial review of the Region's decision. The Association sought to have the Region's decision quashed on the basis that the Region's decision-making process was unfair. In February, 1998, the court dismissed the application. The Region received a request from a newspaper reporter for access to the following: All correspondence (letters, memos, etc.) - both internal & external - regarding policing sent to or from Regional Chair ... or Regional CAO ... between April 1, 1997 and December 1, 1997. The Region located several records responsive to the request and granted partial access to them. Access to the remaining records was denied on the basis of the exemptions at sections 7(1) (advice or recommendations), 9(1)(b) (relations with the Government of Ontario), 12 (solicitor-client privilege) and 14 (personal privacy). The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Region's decision to deny access to the requested records. In her letter of appeal, the appellant made submissions which suggested the possible application of the section 16 "public interest override" to the records. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant indicated that she was no longer interested in gaining access to six records for which the section 14 "personal privacy" exemption was claimed, and one record for which the section 9(1)(b) "relations with the government of Ontario" exemption was claimed. As a result, 16 records remained at issue in this appeal. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant, the Region and two affected person. Representations were received from all parties with the exception of one affected person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(1)(f)
-
7(1)
-
Section 12
-
Section 16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
David Goodis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 30, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|