|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1363
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Toronto Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request to the Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to a specified occurrence report prepared by the Police in the course of their investigation of an alleged sexual assault which took place on a school bus. The requester's young son was the alleged victim. The Police located the requested three-page occurrence report and denied access to portions of it under the mandatory exemption in section 14(1) of the Act (invasion of privacy), with reference to the presumption in section 14(3)(b) (information compiled and identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law). The appellant appealed the Police decision not to grant access to all of the information contained in the record. During the mediation of the appeal, the appellant agreed that she was no longer pursuing access to a Police "10-code" located at the bottom of page one of the record. In addition, the Police provided the appellant with an amended decision letter in which it applied the invasion of privacy exemption in section 38(b) of the Act , as it appeared that the record contained the personal information of the appellant and her son, as well as other identifiable individuals. I decided to seek the representations of the Police and another individual whose rights may be affected by the disclosure of the information contained in the records (the affected person) initially. Both the Police and the affected person provided me with representations. The affected person consented to the disclosure of the statement which she provided to the Police but declined to agree to the release of her address and telephone number to the appellant. The non-confidential portions of the representations of the Police were shared with the appellant to assist her in making her submissions. The appellant provided me with representations responding to the issues raised in the Notice of Inquiry and also raised the possible application of section 16 of the Act , the "public interest override". Similarly, the non-confidential portions of the appellant's representations were shared with the Police in order to assist them in preparing their reply submissions on the possible application of section 16 to the undisclosed information. The Police addressed this issue in their reply representations. The record at issue in this appeal consist of the undisclosed portions of pages one and two of the occurrence report requested by the appellant. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including any identifying number assigned to the individual and the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual. The undisclosed portions of the occurrence report relate to a police investigation into a matter involving the appellant's young son. I find that they contain information about the appellant and her son as they describe their involvement in the incident giving rise to the investigation as well as the investigation itself. The undisclosed portions of the record also contain the personal information of other identifiable individuals who were involved in the incident and the police investigation. This information consists of their addresses and telephone numbers (section 2(1)(d)), their age, race and date of birth (section 2(1)(a)) and their name and occupation, as well as their observations and their actions and involvement in the matter (section 2(1)(h)). By way of summary, I find that the responsive record contains the personal information of the appellant, her son and other identifiable individuals. INVASION OF PRIVACY Section 36(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to their own personal information held by a government body. Section 38 provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access. Under section 38(b) of the Act , where a record contains the personal information of both the appellant and other individuals and the institution determines that the disclosure of the information would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy, the institution has the discretion to deny the requester access to that information. Sections 14(2) and (3) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would result in an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individual to whom the information relates. Section 14(2) provides some criteria for the institution to consider in making this determination. Section 14(3) lists the types of information the disclosure of which is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Section 14(4) refers to certain types of information the disclosure of which does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. The Divisional Court has stated that once a presumption against disclosure has been established, it cannot be rebutted by either one or a combination of the factors set out in 14(2) [Order P-1456, citing John Doe v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 767]. The Divisional Court has stated that the only way in which a section 14(3) presumption can be overcome is if the personal information at issue falls under section 14(4) of the Act or where a finding is made under section 16 of the Act that a compelling public interest exists in the disclosure of the record in which the personal information is contained which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 14 exemption. Section 14(1)(a) As noted above, the affected person has consented to the disclosure of the statement which she provided to the Police though not her address and telephone number. I find that the statement falls within the exception in section 14(1)(a) to the general proscription against the disclosure of personal information. This section st
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 14, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|