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

M-220

Document		M-220


Institution/HIC		Kingston Police Services Board


Summary		ORDER BACKGROUND: The Kingston Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: (i) a copy of all policies and procedures of your force; (ii) copies of job descriptions for all employees of your force; (iii) copies of all Freedom of Information requests received by your force, since the inception of the Act; (iv) a detailed listing of all fax machines and personal computer equipment owned and operated by your force, along with copies of the original purchase requisitions; (v) a detailed listing of all Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claims involving your force, over the past ten (10) years, including those which are currently active; this information should include, for example, date/nature of injury/claim, length of claim, treatment, etc.; (vi) a detailed listing of all arrests made by your force over the past 10 years, including those to-date for 1993; (vii) copies of your force's current operating budget, as well as copies of budgets for the past ten (10) years; (viii) a copy of your force's recent annual report; (ix) copies of all press releases from your force, over the past twelve (12) month period; (x) a detailed listing of all legal challenges (civil suits, criminal actions, etc.) involving your force over the past ten (10) years; please include information on outcome of cases and settlements paid or received. In response to the request, the Police provided the requester with a copy of their Records Retention By-Law. This by-law outlines the types of files maintained by the Police and the time periods over which these files are retained. Pursuant to section 17(2) of the Act , the institution then asked the requester to clarify his request in view of the contents of the by-law. In response to this correspondence, the requester clarified several aspects of his request. The amended list of records to which he then sought access is set out below: (i) a copy of your force's General Orders, Directives and Regulations manual; (ii) copies of job descriptions for all employee classifications (sworn and civilian); (iii) total number of personal and general Freedom of Information requests received since the inception of the Act, please provide details of request in relation to the general items; (iv) a listing of all fax machines, personal computers and related equipment (valued over $100) owned/leased/rented by your force, please include make/model/purpose/purchase price and current depreciation schedules; (v) please cancel this section of my request pertaining to WCB claims; (vi) statistical information regarding charges laid/arrests made by your force, broken down by offence, over the past five (5) years, including 1993 to-date; (vii) a copy of your force's current operation budget, and budgets for the past five (5) years; (viii) as per original request; (ix) as per original request; (x) please cancel this section of my request pertaining to legal challenges -- however, could you please provide me with the names and addresses of the courts in your area that would handle cases involving your force. Following receipt of this revised request, the Police issued a decision letter which indicated that access to some of the records requested would likely be denied under sections 8(1)(c) and (i) of the Act . The Police also advised the requester that records relating to his request for information about computer equipment did not exist and that the Police had not issued a year end report since 1976. Finally, the Police, pursuant to section 45(1)(a) of the Act , provided the requester with a fee estimate of $2,250 to compensate for their search time and for the preparation of the relevant records. The Police also advised the requester of his right to request a waiver of the fees. The requester subsequently sought a fee waiver from the Police on the grounds that payment would cause financial hardship to him and that the disclosure of the records could benefit public health or safety. The Police made the decision not to waive the fee and the requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. The mediation of the appeal was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted was sent to the appellant and to the Police. Representations were received from the Police only. The appellant stated that the written materials which he had previously submitted both to the Police and the Commissioner's office would constitute his representations. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the Police not to waive fees was proper in the circumstances of this appeal. To address this subject, I will need to consider the contents of section 45(4) of the Act . This provisions states that: A head shall waive the payment of all or any part of an amount required to be paid under this Act if, in the head's opinion, it is fair and equitable to do so after considering, (a) The extent to which the actual cost of processing, collecting and copying the record varies from the amount of payment required by subsection (1); (b) whether the payment will cause a financial hardship for the person requesting the record; (c) whether dissemination of the record will benefit public health or safety; (d) any other matter prescribed in the regulations. Section 8 of Regulation 823 made under the Act reads, in part, as follows: The following are prescribed as matters for a head to consider in deciding whether to waive all or part of a payment required to be made under the Act: 1. Whether the person requesting access to the record is given access to it. It has been established in a number of previous orders that the person requesting a fee waiver has the responsibility of providing adequate evidence to support a claim that such a waiver is appropriate (Orders P-476 and M-166). In his letter of appeal, the appellant submitted that the dissemination of the records at issue will benefit public safety pursuant to section 45(4)(c) of the Act and that the payment of the $2,250 fee would cause financial hardship to him under section 45(4)(b) of the Act . I will address


Legislation		MFIPPA 45(4)(a) 45(4)(b) 45(4)(c) 45(4)(d)


Subject Index		fair and equitable fee waiver


Published		Nov 19, 1993


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu