|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-1146
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit (the Health Unit) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to the complete Health Unit Report pertaining to an incident in which a dog allegedly bit the appellant, causing her injury. In particular, the appellant indicated that she was seeking access to the name and address of the dog owner. The Health Unit located records responsive to the request, and granted access to the majority of the information in them. In doing so, the Health Unit provided access to the name of the dog owner but refused to disclose this person's address and telephone number on the basis of section 14 of the Act (invasion of privacy). The appellant appealed the Health Unit's decision to deny access to the dog owner's address. In her letter of appeal, the appellant indicates that she intends to commence a civil action for damages as a result of the incident. She states that a defendant's (the dog owner) name is only one half of the information needed to commence an action against a person in Ontario. According to the appellant, the other mandatory piece of information is the defendant's address. The appellant also submits that without the address of the dog owner, a statement of claim cannot be served on the defendant and this, in turn, will allow the defendant to ignore the statement of claim and avoid having to deliver a statement of defence to the claim. The appellant further points out that the inability to serve the statement of claim in accordance with the rules of the court will prevent the appellant from successfully obtaining any default judgment against the dog owner. In support of this submission, the appellant referred to the relevant provisions of the Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure regarding preparation of the statement of claim, service, delivery of the statement of defence, application for default judgment, and dismissal for delay (rules 14, 16, 18, 19 and 24). This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Health Unit and the dog owner. As the record at issue appears to contain the personal information of both the requester and the dog owner, the Notice raised the possible application of section 38(b) of the Act (invasion of privacy). Moreover, in view of the appellant's submissions regarding preparation and service of the statement of claim, the parties were requested to address the following three questions: (1) Is there another way in which the appellant can determine the address of the dog owner? (2) Is the appellant [plaintiff] required to personally serve the statement of claim on the dog owner [defendant] in order to initiate the action or is there some other method of service available to her? (3) How are the circumstances in this appeal different from those in Orders M-39, M-114 and M-746 which have held that disclosure of the address of a potential defendant would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy? Representations were received from the appellant and the Health Unit. The appellant's representations are in addition to those provided in her letter of appeal. RECORD: The record at issue is a one-page document entitled: Rabies Report. The only information at issue is the address of the dog owner. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined to mean, in part, recorded information about an identifiable individual. I have reviewed the record and find that it contains the personal information of the appellant, as well as the dog owner. INVASION OF PRIVACY The statute Where a record contains the personal information of both the appellant and another individual, section 38(b) allows the Health Unit to withhold information from the record if it determines that disclosing that information would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy. On appeal, I must be satisfied that disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy. This is distinguishable from the case where the record only contains the personal information of another individual. In such a case, section 14(1) of the Act prohibits the institution from disclosing it except in the circumstances listed in sections 14(1)(a) through (f). In particular, section 14(1)(f) permits disclosure if it "does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy." Accordingly, in such a case, I must be satisfied that disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's personal privacy. In both situations, 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 head to consider in making this determination. Section 14(3) lists the types of information whose disclosure is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. 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 there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the information which clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 14 exemption. Health Unit's representations The Health Unit does not rely on any of the presumptions in section 14(3) of the Act . Nor does it specifically refer to any of the factors in section 14(2) which favour privacy protection. The Health Unit's representations focus on whether the appellant has established the relevancy of section 14(2)(d) (fair determination of rights). In this regard, the Health Unit addressed the three questions posed in the Notice of Inquiry. With respect to question three, the Health Unit is of the view that it should be able to rely on the rulings of previous
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 04, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|