|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant, by his counsel, made a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police). The request was for access to all records relating to his arrest and subsequent detention by the Police. Specifically, the appellant sought access to records which would document his treatment by Police and any injuries which he received while in custody. The appellant alleges that he was physically and sexually attacked and tortured in the course of his arrest and interrogation by members of the Police. The Police denied access to the requested records, claiming application of the exemptions provided by sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (l) (law enforcement), 8(1)(f) (right to a fair trial), 9(1)(d) (intergovernmental relations) and 14(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Act to some or all of the records. The Police also denied access to some of the information found in the records, on the basis that it was not responsive to the request. The appellant appealed the decision of the Police, stating that the exemptions should not apply and requesting a review of the non-responsive records. During mediation, the Mediator included sections 38(a) and (b) of the Act as issues in this appeal, because the records appeared to contain the personal information of the appellant. This office provided the appellant and the Police with a Notice of Inquiry. Representations were received from both parties. RECORDS: The records at issue total approximately 876 pages and include the Record of Arrest with supplementary reports, Criminal Informations, a Crown Brief, officers' notebook entries, statements, Prisoner Transportation Logs, a short video tape, and other miscellaneous records. There are a number of duplicate records which I have identified as follows: Records 9 and 10, consisting of pages 5 and 6 of a Supplementary Record of Arrest dated January 20, 1999, is duplicated at Records 15 and 16, Records 24 and 25, Records 35 and 36 and Records 868 and 869; Part of Record 9 also appears as Record 788; Records 771 to 774 are duplicated at Records 776 to 779; Record 17, a one-page Record of Arrest dated January 20, 1999, is duplicated at Record 872. I will address the application of the exemptions claimed to each of the original copies of the records and the decisions made with respect to them will apply equally to the duplicate copies. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ARE THE RECORDS IDENTIFIED BY THE POLICE RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST? Order P-880 indicates that the term "responsive" records in the context of a request under the Act means records which are "reasonably related to the request." The Police initially claimed that certain records or parts of records are not responsive to the request. The Police indicated that the non-responsive information consists of unrelated entries in police officers' notebooks, court dockets, prisoner transportation logs, and references to the annual leave of involved officers. The Police submitted that parts of certain records give individual officer's leave dates, and other records identify individuals uninvolved in the incident in question, such as other accused persons who are listed in the Prisoner Transportation documents. Many of the records consist of notes contained in police officers' memorandum books. The Police indicated that since police officers record all significant events which occur during their tour of duty, there is information in the officers' memorandum books with is neither relevant nor responsive to the request. The Police submitted that an examination of the records will clearly demonstrate that the portions severed as "not responsive" are wholly irrelevant to the occurrence in question, and therefore are not reasonably related to the request. The appellant submitted that he is not seeking access to information respecting why he was arrested and/or criminally charged, but is concerned with information which would show that he was attacked by police while he was under police supervision. Having had the benefit of the appellant's submissions, it appears clear to me that significantly more information which was identified by the Police as being responsive to the request does not, in fact, relate to the events surrounding his arrest and detention by the Police. The appellant has indicated that he is not pursuing access to records which document events which precede his being taken into custody by the Police. In addition, I am unable to identify a record or records which contain "information which would show that he was attacked by police while he was under police supervision." Accordingly, it is my view that the only records which are responsive to this request are those which relate to the appellant while he was in the custody of the Police. Accordingly, I find that Records 9, 10, 17-18, 119, 120, 140, 142, 182-187, 195-197, 230, 231, 271, 300, 341, 418, 450, 451, 509, 732, 733, 771- 774, 815-846, 874-876 and the videotape are responsive to the appellant's request. Based on the submissions of the appellant and my review of these records, I have determined that some of them also contain information that is not responsive to the appellant's request, including information about other investigations. I have highlighted this information in blue on the copy of some of the records being sent to the Police with this order. Because this information is not responsive, it should not be disclosed to the appellant. For reasons of security, the Police declined to provide this office with copies of Records 119 and 120, 271, 300, 341, 418, 450 and 451, 509, 732 and 733 and 771 to 774, though I was able to view these records at their offices. In accordance with my reasoning set out above, I find that those portions of these records which recount events prior to the arrest of the appellant are not responsive to the request and need not be disclosed to the appellant. I will address the application of the exemptions claimed for the responsive portions of these records below. I also find that all of the remaining records originally identified by the Police are not responsive, and will not be addressed further in this order. The records to which the Pol
|