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

MO-1335

Document		MO-1335


Institution/HIC		Toronto Police Services Board


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant wrote to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) asking "why there is [a Firearms Interest Person (FIP) notation] on my CPIC record placed there by your department on October 17, 1997." The appellant explained that his objective was "twofold. First to determine what this is all about. And second to remove it." The appellant asked that the Police treat his request as being made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). In response, the Police explained that "the FIP database was implemented to satisfy the provisions of section 5 of the [federal] Firearms Act ." The Police also identified two records, consisting of four pages, as responsive to the request, and stated that partial access to the records was being granted. The Police advised that access was being denied to portions of the records pursuant to sections 8(1)(l) (disclosure could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime), and section 38(b) in conjunction with section 14(1)(f) (unjustified invasion of another individual's privacy). In addition, the Police explained that some information in the records was being withheld because it was not responsive to the appellant's request. The Police enclosed four pages of severed records with the decision letter. The appellant then wrote to the Police explaining that his objective was to have the FIP notation "expunged from my CPIC record, and nothing more." The appellant also provided details about the incident giving rise to the FIP notation, and asked on what basis the notation was put in place. He then explained that although the listed expiry date for the notation was October 17, 2002, five years after the incident, this was "onerous" and should be reduced to three years. The appellant also stated his view that the exemptions cited by the Police do not apply. The appellant asked the Police for a more detailed response as to why the Police were relying on the cited exemptions, and for "summary information as to the nature of the information that was withheld." The appellant further stated: Alternatively, if the FIP notation was placed on my CPIC record without a court order and in the normal course of conducting an investigation, at which time [named police officers] may have routinely specified an expiry date of up to five (5) years, perhaps this matter could be resolved directly by those constables by simply amending the expiry date of the FIP notation on my CPIC record to coincide with the completion of their investigation. Accordingly, I would appreciate your recommendation as to how I might directly approach one or all of them, or one of their superiors, to accomplish this end. In conclusion, the existence of this FIP notation endangers my safety in routine situations where I have occasion to have contact with the police. For example, in the past two months and for no other possible reason than the FIP notation, I was approached by constables, hand-over-holster, and searched ostensibly for weapons. One instances occurred when reporting the vandalization of my car window, and the other occurred when a merchant mistakenly believed my AMEX card was reported lost or stolen. In both instances the constables knew my name and ran a CPIC check before approaching me. As you can see, this FIP notation impacts my day-to-day life. Accordingly, if it should be necessary I will have to take legal steps in court here or in Ontario, and will attend in person, in order to have this FIP notation expunged from my CPIC record. The Police responded by stating that "the retention of information on a FIP entry is outside the jurisdiction of the [Police]." The Police also indicated that the appellant may contact a named staff member "to discuss the current firearms legislation", or appeal the decision to this office. The appellant then appealed the decision of the Police to this office. I sent a Notice of Inquiry setting out the issues in the appeal to the appellant initially. After receiving the appellant's representations, I determined that it was not necessary for me to seek representations from the Police. RECORDS: The two records at issue in this appeal consist of a one-page CPIC report (Record 1) and a three-page occurrence report (Record 2). The Police withheld some information from Record 1 on the basis of section 8(1)(l) of the Act . This information is described as "format codes for accessing the CPIC database." The Police withheld information from Record 2 on the basis of section 38(b) in conjunction with section 14(1)(f). The Police also cited the presumption against disclosure at section 14(3)(b) (personal information compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law) with respect to this record. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. The appellant submits that Records 1 and 2 contain personal information relating to him only, and not of any other individuals. The appellant specifically states with respect to Record 2 that any information it contains with respect to a person he refers to as "the informant" (the affected person) is not that individual's personal information. The appellant argues that the identity and any statements made by the affected person constitute "public information" made "in a formal report to the police and, as such, should be available to anyone." Both records clearly contain the appellant's personal information. In addition, Record 1 contains no personal information of any other individuals. However, I do not accept the appellant's submission that information about the affected person in Record 2 does not constitute that person's personal information. The definition of "personal information" in section 2(1) requires only that the information be "about&q


Legislation		MFIPPA 14(1)(b) 14(1)(c) 14(3)(b) 2(1) personal information 8(1)(l) Section 16


Subject Index		crime control public record


Published		Sep 08, 2000


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu