IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

M-922

Document		M-922


Institution/HIC		Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional PoliceServices Board (the Police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to copies of all hispersonal information held by the Police, including the information in anidentified file. The Police provided access to portions of the responsive records. ThePolice denied access to parts of Record 7 on the basis of the followingexemptions in the Act : law enforcement report - section 8(2)(a) invasion of privacy - sections 14(1) and 38(b) discretion to refuse access to requester's own information - section 38(a) In addition, the Police claimed that Record 8 in its entirety fell withinthe parameters of section 52(3)3 of the Act , and therefore outside thescope of the Act . The appellant filed an appeal of the decision of the Police. Duringmediation, he narrowed the scope of the records at issue to Record 8 in itsentirety, and page 18 of Record 7. The Police have exempted this page solely onthe basis of sections 14(1) and 38(b). A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, the Police and an individualwhose interests could be affected by the disclosure of page 18 of Record 7 (theaffected person). Representations were received from the Police only. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" isdefined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. Page 18 of Record 7 is a letter sent by the affected person to the Police. I have reviewed this document and finds that it contains the personalinformation of both the affected person and the appellant. Section 36(1) of the Act allows individuals access to their ownpersonal information held by a government institution. However, section 38 setsout exceptions to this right. Where a record contains the personal information of both the appellant andother individuals, section 38(b) of the Act allows the institution towithhold information from the record if it determines that disclosing thatinformation would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy. On appeal, I must be satisfied thatdisclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of anotherindividual's personal privacy. The appellant is not required to prove thecontrary. Sections 14(2), (3) and (4) provide guidance in determining whetherdisclosure of personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion ofpersonal privacy. Disclosing the types of personal information listed insection 14(3) is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Ifone of the presumptions applies, the institution can disclose the personalinformation only if it falls under section 14(4) or if section 16 applies to it. If none of the presumptions in section 14(3) apply, the institution mustconsider the factors listed in section 14(2), as well as all other relevantcircumstances. The personal information contained in the letter does not fall within any ofthe presumptions in section 14(3) of the Act . However, the Policesubmit that it was supplied to them in confidence and that its contents arehighly sensitive. The Police also explain the potential repercussions shouldthe letter be disclosed. Having reviewed this letter, I accept thesesubmissions and thus find that sections 14(2)(f), (h) and (e) of the Act are relevant considerations which favour non-disclosure. As indicated, theappellant has provided no submissions raising considerations which favourdisclosure. Based on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances of this case, Ifind that disclosure of page 18 of Record 7 would constitute an unjustifiedinvasion of the personal privacy of the affected person and that it is exemptpursuant to section 38(b) of the Act . JURISDICTION I must now determine if Record 8 in its entirety falls within the scope ofsections 52(3) and (4) of the Act . These provisions read as follows: (3)Subject to subsection (4), this Act does not apply to recordscollected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution inrelation to any of the following: 1.Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal orother entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person bythe institution. 2.Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relationsor to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution anda person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipatedproceeding. 3.Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labourrelations or employment-related matters in which the institution has aninterest. (4)This Act applies to the following records: 1.An agreement between an institution and a trade union. 2.An agreement between an institution and one or more employees whichends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labourrelations or to employment-related matters. 3.An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resultingfrom negotiations about employment- related matters between the institution andthe employee or employees. 4.An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to thatinstitution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred bythe employee in his or her employment. The interpretation of sections 52(3) send (4) is a preliminary issue whichgoes to the Commissioner's jurisdiction to continue an inquiry. Section 52(3) is record-specific and fact-specific. If this section appliesto a specific record, in the circumstances of a particular appeal, and none ofthe exceptions listed in section 52(4) are present, then the record is excludedfrom the scope of the Act and not subject to the Commissioner'sjurisdiction. Section 52(3)3 In order to fall within the scope of paragraph 3 of section 52(3), thePolice must establish that: 1.the record was collected, prepared, maintained or used by the Police ontheir behalf; and 2.this collection, preparation, maintenance or usage was in relation tomeetings, consultations, discussions or communications; and 3.these meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are aboutlabour relations or employment-related matters in which the Police have aninterest. [Order P-1242] Record 8 is a report prepared by the Professional Standards Section of thePolice. It contains the report itself, with its findings and recommendations,as well as nine attachments consisting of correspondence and memoranda relatedto the investigation and the investigator's notes. Requirements 1 and 2 The Police state that the info


Legislation		MFIPPA 14(2)(e) 14(2)(f) 14(2)(h) 38(b) 52(3)3


Subject Index		labour relations/employment-related matters


Published		Apr 09, 1997


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu