|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1293
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Toronto Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to all records in the custody and/or under the control of the Police relating to himself between 1981 and the date of the request. In particular, the appellant sought his "full file" from the "80 East Mall Court". The Police located approximately 96 pages of responsive records and granted full access to pages 1, 75, 77, 78 and 85, and partial access to pages 73, 74, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86 and 87. The Police advised the appellant that some information was removed from the records as it was not responsive to his request. The Police denied access to the remaining records and parts of records pursuant to the exemptions in the following sections of the Act : danger to life or safety - section 8(1)(e); facilitate commission of unlawful act - section 8(1)(l); law enforcement report - section 8(2)(a); relations with government - section 9(1)(d); invasion of privacy - sections 14(1)(f) and 38(b) with reference to section 14(3)(b); information publicly available - section 15(a); discretion to refuse requester's own information - section 38(a); and danger to mental or physical health of requester - section 38(d). The appellant appealed the decision of the Police and indicated that he believes more records should exist. During mediation, the Police provided the appellant with a second decision letter in which they clarified that occurrence reports for the period of time prior to 1992 had been purged in accordance with their records retention by-law. Further mediation was not possible and this appeal was moved on to inquiry. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police initially. The Police submitted representations in response to the Notice. Parts of the representations made by the Police were then attached to a Notice of Inquiry and sent to the appellant. The appellant submitted representations in response to this Notice. RECORDS: The records at issue consist of the following: occurrence reports: pages 73, 74, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86 and 87 in part; occurrence reports: pages 76, 83, 88 - 96 in full; Crown Brief: pages 2 - 72 in full. DISCUSSION : REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH Where a requester provides sufficient detail about the records which he is seeking and the Police indicate that further records do not exist, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Police have made a reasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. The Act does not require the Police to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. However, in my view, in order to properly discharge their obligations under the Act , the Police must provide me with sufficient evidence to show that they have made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request. Although an appellant will rarely be in a position to indicate precisely which records have not been identified in the Police response to a request, the appellant must, nevertheless, provide a reasonable basis for concluding that such records may, in fact, exist. The Police indicate that during the initial processing of this request, the appellant was contacted and he provided his date of birth. Following a search through their records, the Police were only able to locate records relating to the East Mall matter. The Police advised the appellant at that time that most records prior to 1992 would have been purged pursuant to their Records Retention Schedule. The Police go on to explain, in detail, the steps taken by two experienced employees to search for responsive records. The Police also attached a copy of their Records Retention Schedule which sets out the retention periods for various types of records which might be responsive to the request. With respect to the East Mall matter, the Police indicate that the appellant told them that he had attempted to get information from the East Mall Court but nothing was given to him. From this conversation, the Police determined that the contents of the crown brief and the appellant's criminal record would be the responsive records. The Police describe their attempts to clarify with the appellant exactly what he was looking for and whether the records they located were, in fact, responsive to his request. The Police indicate that the appellant was not able to provide them with any further information which would assist them in their search. The Police note that although the Mediator assigned to this file informed them that the appellant felt there should be more records, it appeared that she also did not have information which would facilitate a further search for responsive records. In his representations, the appellant lists a number of events in which he was involved which may or may not have involved the Police. The appellant does not indicate whether the Police were called or involved in them. Further, much of the information pertains to events which occurred prior to 1992. If information from this time did exist, I am satisfied that it would have been destroyed in accordance with the Police Records Retention Schedule. In my view, the appellant's representations do not provide any assistance in determining whether records should now exist. Section 17(1)(b) of the Act requires that "a person seeking access to a record shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record ...". In view of the above, I find that the appellant did not provide the Police with sufficient detail to enable them to locate any further responsive records, despite their attempts to obtain this information from him. Even if the appellant had provided the Police with the information he set out in his representations, I am not convinced that it would have assisted them in searching for further responsive records. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the search conducted by the Police for responsive records was reasonable. NON-RESP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 18, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|