Document

MO-1283

Institution/HIC  South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board
Summary  NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The South Bruce-Grey Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for information relating to the requester. The request was in the form of questions and was worded as follows: (i) Were the [Police] contacted by [a named individual] or any other resident of [a specified address], on January 4, 1999 or at a later date to investigate a dark van parked outside [the named individual's] home and if so: (a) at what time was the complaint received at your office? (b) what officer responded? (name and badge number) (c) was it suggested by [the named individual] or by anyone else that I was the person in the van outside [the named individual's] home? (ii) Is there an ongoing police investigation involving [the requester] regarding (i) above? (iii) If there is an ongoing police investigation of myself as mentioned in (i) above then: (a) what is the status of this investigation? (b) when will I be contacted regarding this issue? (c) when do you expect closure of this matter? (iv) Have any officials of [a named school board] requested information regarding this matter? The Police asked the requester to clarify "the dates of the records and some description of the records" requested. The requester submitted a clarified request. Part 1 of the clarified request was for access to "all files containing my personal information including, but not limited to, all investigation reports". Part 2 of the clarified request was for any records responsive to the questions in his original letter. After notifying six individuals whose interests could be affected by disclosure of the records (the affected persons), the Police informed the appellant that it had identified four records or groups of records responsive to Part 1 of the clarified request. The Police granted access to Records 1 and 2 and partial access to Record 3. Access to Record 4 was denied in full. The Police denied access to the information severed from Record 3 pursuant to sections 8(2)(a) (law enforcement report) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . Access was denied to Record 4 pursuant to section 14(1). The Police relied on the "presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy" in section 14(3)(b) of the Act in support of the section 14(1) claims. With respect to Part 2 of the clarified request, the Police refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pursuant to section 14(5) of the Act . The requester, now the appellant, appealed the decision of the Police. The appellant also raised the issue of conflict of interest. The Freedom of Information Co-ordinator for the Police is married to the person who has assumed the job of principal at the school where the appellant taught and where some of the incidents which are the subject of his request allegedly took place. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, the Police and the affected persons. Because the Part 1 records as well as any responsive Part 2 records, if they exist, would appear to contain the personal information of the appellant, sections 38(a) and (b) of the Act were added to the scope of the inquiry. Representations were received from all parties. DISCUSSION: REFUSAL TO CONFIRM OR DENY THE EXISTENCE OF RECORDS Section 14(5) of the Act reads as follows: A head may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record if disclosure of the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. For ease of discussion, I will state that the requirements of section 14(5) have not been established by the Police. A total of 59 pages of records do exist which are responsive to Part 2 of the appellant's request, specifically "General Occurrence Reports" and "Supplementary Reports", a witness statement and documents provided to the Police stemming from an incident involving the receipt of a threatening letter on January 19, 1999 and the subsequent investigation undertaken by the Police. These records cover the period January through May 1999. A full discussion of section 14(5) will follow later in this order. RECORDS: The remaining Part 1 records consist of the undisclosed portions of an incident summary prepared by the Police (Record 3), and ten pages of witness statements and attached documents concerning an assault investigation involving the appellant. The Part 2 records involve a separate investigation into allegations of criminal harassment by the appellant, as described above. PERSONAL INFORMATION Section 2(1) of the Act defines "personal information", in part, as recorded information about an identifiable individual. The Part 1 and Part 2 records all relate to investigations conducted by the Police into allegations involving the appellant. As such, I find that all records responsive to both parts of the appellant's request contain his personal information. Some of the records contain information provided to the Police by the affected persons and other identifiable individuals in the context of the two investigations. I find that these records contain the personal information of these other identifiable individuals, as well as the appellant. PART 1 RECORDS The Police claim that section 8(2)(a) applies to Record 3, and that section 14(1) applies to Records 3 and 4. Because I have found that these records contains the personal information of the appellant, the relevant exemption claims are sections 38(a) and (b). Law Enforcement Report Under section 38(a), the Police have discretion to deny access to an individual's own personal information in instances where certain exemptions apply. One such exemption is section 8. Section 8(2)(a) reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record, that is a
Legislation
  • MFIPPA
  • 14(5)
Subject Index
Published  Mar 09, 2000
Type  Order
<< Back
Back to Top
25 Years of Access and Privacy
To search for a specific word or phrase, use quotation marks around each search term. (Example: "smart meter")