|
|
Document
|
|
M-295
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Metropolitan Licensing Commission
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to all records of a personal nature relating to the requester which were compiled subsequent to an earlier request from the same individual. The Municipality transferred the request to the Metropolitan Licensing Commission (the Commission) pursuant to section 18(3) of the Act as it appeared that the Commission had a greater interest in the record. The Commission located a number of records responsive to the request and granted access to a portion of them. Access to other documents was, however, denied pursuant to the exemptions provided by sections 7, 12, 14, 15 and 38(a) of the Act . Access to other records and portions of records were denied by the Commission on the basis that they were not responsive to the request. The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the Commissioner's office notified 14 individuals whose rights might be affected by the disclosure of the records at issue. As further mediation was not successful, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Commission was sent to the appellant, the Commission and 14 affected persons. Representations were received from the Commission only. The records at issue consist of 26 documents comprised of memoranda, letters, notes and daytimer pages. The records and the exemptions claimed for each document are more fully described in Appendix "A" to this order. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: In its representations, the Commission submits that Records 5, 22, 37, 39, 40, 54, 59, 66 and 86 in their entirety, and the final entries on Records 42 and 81, and the first, fourth, fifth and last four paragraphs of Record 88, contain information which is not responsive to the request. I have carefully examined the information contained in these documents and agree that these records, or the information contained in them which was withheld from disclosure, does not relate to the requester and is, therefore, not responsive to her request. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information" as defined by section 2(1) of the Act . B. If the answer to Issue A is yes, and the information relates to the appellant and other individuals, whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 38(b) of the Act applies to the records. C. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 7(1) and 38(a) of the Act apply to those portions of Records 16 and 41 which were not disclosed to the appellant. D. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 12 and 38(a) of the Act apply to those portions of Records 23, 31, 34, 41, 42, 43, 50, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 73, 81, 87, 88, 90, and portions of Records 57, 62, and 91 which were not disclosed to the appellant. E. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 15(a) and 38(a) of the Act apply to Record 19. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information" as defined by section 2(1) of the Act . Section 2(1) of the Act defines "personal information", to mean: recorded information about an identifiable individual, including, ... (e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual, ... (g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and (h) the individual's name if 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; I have carefully examined the records at issue and find that all of them contain information which qualifies as personal information under the definition described above. I further find that Records 31, 34, 50 and 81 contain only the personal information of the appellant. Records 10, 16, 19, 23, 41, 43, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 73, 87, 88, 90 and 91 contain personal information relating to the appellant and other identifiable individuals. ISSUE B: If the answer to Issue A is yes, and the information relates to the appellant and other individuals, whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 38(b) of the Act applies to the records. In my discussion of Issue A, I found that a number of the records at issue contain the personal information of the appellant and a number of other identifiable individuals. Section 36(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to personal information about themselves, which is in the custody or under the control of an institution. However, this right of access is not absolute. Section 38 provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access. One such exemption is found in section 38(b) of the Act , which reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose to the individual to whom the information relates personal information, if the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy; As has been stated in a number of previous orders, section 38(b) introduces a balancing principle. The head must look at the information and weigh the requester's right of access to his or her own personal information against the rights of other individuals to the protection of their personal privacy. Sections 14(2) and (3) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether the disclosure of personal information would result in an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the individual to whom the information relates. Section 14(3) lists the types of information whose disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. In their representations, the Commission claims the application of the presumption contained in section 14(3)(d) of the Act to the records. This section reads: A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy if the personal information,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(2)(f)
-
14(3)(d)
-
2(1) personal information
-
38(a)
-
38(b)
-
7(1)
-
Section 12
-
Section 15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 30, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|