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-1341

Document		MO-1341


Institution/HIC		Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (the Police) received a request from a former police officer under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to all information in the police files pertaining to the requester including a copy of every occurrence where his name is mentioned. His request includes access to specific records as described in his letter. The requester also provided the Police with his full name, date of birth and previous addresses. The Police located a number of responsive records and granted partial access to them. Access was denied to the remainder of the information pursuant to the following sections of the Act : discretion to refuse requester's own information/law enforcement - section 38(a) in conjunction with sections 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(c); invasion of privacy - section 38(b) with reference to the factors and presumptions in sections 14(2)(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) and 14(3)(a), (b), (d) and (g). The Police advised the requester that one of the records (a report) relates to a deceased person and that section 54(a) of the Act could apply if the requester is the executor or administrator of the deceased's estate. The Police also denied access to two 1974 reports stored on microfilm on the basis that they cannot make an access decision because the reports are illegible. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision to grant partial access to the records. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant wrote to the Mediator stating that he believes that more responsive records should exist with respect to seven specifically identified incidents. The Mediator determined that records pertaining to five of the incidents have been located but access was denied by the Police, either in whole or in part, and these records are at issue in this appeal. However, the Mediator sent the appellant's letter to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the Co-ordinator) for the Police and asked them to conduct a further search for records relating to two incidents which occurred in 1984 or 1985 and in the summer of 1989. The Police advised the Mediator that a further search was conducted and no records were located for these two incidents. The appellant does not believe that there are no records pertaining to these two incidents and he wishes to pursue this matter. Consequently, one of the issues in the appeal is whether the search conducted by the Police for records pertaining to these two occurrences was reasonable. The appellant told the Mediator that he was a police officer from approximately 1967 to 1980. He clarified that he is not pursuing access to every occurrence where his name is mentioned prior to 1974. Rather, he indicated that he is seeking access to all occurrence reports in which he was involved, whether as the responding officer or otherwise, after 1974. Since the records do not appear to contain all of the occurrences to which the requester responded as an officer after 1974, the Mediator contacted the Co-ordinator, who subsequently advised the Mediator that a search for all such records would take some time as it would be extensive and it would probably involve a substantial fee. After the Mediator communicated this information to the appellant, he indicated that he is not pursuing the appeal to obtain access to these records. Also during mediation, the appellant indicated that he is not seeking access to the personal information of other individuals such as their names, addresses or telephone numbers etc. identified in the records. Therefore, this information is not at issue. The appellant stated further that he is not pursuing access to the two illegible occurrence reports referred to in the decision letter issued by the Police. Finally, the appellant has advised that he is not at this time an administrator of the estate of the individual who died in 1975. Accordingly, section 54(a) is not an issue in this appeal. Further mediation was not possible and this appeal was moved into the inquiry stage. I decided to seek representations from the Police initially. The Police submitted representations in response. After reviewing these representations, I decided to seek representations from the appellant. I attached the non-confidential portions of the Police's representations to the Notice of Inquiry which I sent to the appellant. The appellant was asked to review the Police's representations and to refer to them in responding to the issues in this appeal, where appropriate. The issues in this appeal are complex and there appeared to be a number of unresolved matters which may possibly not require adjudication. In the Notice of Inquiry which I sent to the Police, I raised these issues and asked the Police to respond to them, which they did. In the Notice of Inquiry that I sent to the appellant, I asked him to indicate in his representations whether any of the issues had been resolved to his satisfaction based on the submissions of the Police. The appellant submitted representations in response to the Notice. In his representations, he indicated that he is no longer pursuing access to a number of records. He also indicated that he had certain concerns but suggested that the receipt of more information about them would resolve the issue. I have set out the particulars of his representations in this regard below under the heading "Preliminary Matters". PRELIMINARY MATTERS: ISSUES SETTLED DURING ADJUDICATION Illegible pages During mediation, the Mediator identified a number of pages which are illegible. This information was provided to the Police and they were asked to send better copies back to this office. The records were identified by page number, description and date. In reviewing the records, I also identified a number of additional pages which I am not sufficiently able to read in order to determine their content and whether the exemptions claimed apply to them. I set out all of the illegible pages in the Notice of Inqui


Legislation		MFIPPA 14(3)(b) 8(2)(a) 8(2)(c)


Subject Index		civil liability compiled as part of an investigation law enforcement


Published		Sep 21, 2000


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu