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-777

Document		M-777


Institution/HIC		City of Toronto


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ), the appellant submitted a request to the City of Toronto (the City) for correction of personal information. The request refers to a "security" file kept "against" the appellant during a specified period. It asks that the documents in this file, which the appellant obtained pursuant to a previous access request under the Act , be destroyed if proven inaccurate. A six-page letter described by the appellant as a "rebuttal" of the allegations against him was attached to the request. The City responded by denying the correction request. In its decision letter, the City advised the appellant that he could require a statement of disagreement to be attached to his personal information reflecting the requested correction. The City also invited the appellant to inform its Freedom of Information Office if he wishes to have the letter which he included with his request appended to the personal information as his statement of disagreement. The appellant filed an appeal of the City's decision to deny his correction request. The records which are the subject of the appellant's correction request pertain to events at an athletic facility (the facility) involving the appellant, who was a member of the facility. The records contain allegations to the effect that the appellant exhibited abusive and threatening behaviour towards staff members. The records are: a memorandum of telephone conversations kept by the facility's Manager of Administration and Operations; a memorandum pertaining to membership entry procedures; a letter from the appellant to the facility's Manager of Administration and Operations; an unserved notice under the Trespass to Property Act , addressed to the appellant; a report on a visit to the facility by the Police, and notes of a telephone conversation; typewritten notes of an incident, prepared by the facility's Recreation Supervisor; three letters to the appellant on letterhead of the facility; ten incident report forms completed by staff members of the facility; handwritten notes of a staff member; an internal memorandum; notes and a message slip regarding the appellant's membership dues instalments. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the City and the appellant. In particular, the Notice of Inquiry invited the parties to submit representations on the following issues: (1) whether the records contain the appellant's personal information; (2) whether any personal information in the records should be corrected under section 36(2)(a) of the Act ; and (3) if the answer to the preceding question is yes, whether the correction should be effected by destroying the records. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, both the appellant and the City submitted representations. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION Section 2(1) of the Act provides, in part, that "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual. The City submits that the records contain the appellant's personal information because they include various combinations of the appellant's name, address and telephone number. The City also notes that some of the records contain the views or opinions of other individuals about the appellant. I have reviewed the records and I am satisfied that all of them contain the appellant's personal information. CORRECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Sections 36(2)(a) and (b) of the Act provide for correction requests and statements of disagreement relating to one's own personal information. These sections state: Every individual who is given access under subsection (1) to personal information is entitled to, (a) request correction of the personal information if the individual believes there is an error or omission; (b) require that a statement of disagreement be attached to the information reflecting any correction that was requested but not made. There is a difference in wording between sections 36(2)(a) and (b), and in my view, this difference is significant. Section 36(2)(a) indicates that individuals may request correction of their personal information, while section 36(2)(b) indicates that individuals may require a statement of disagreement to be attached to a record reflecting any correction which was requested but not made. In particular, because section 36(2)(a) only provides a right to request a correction, it is my view that it gives the City a discretionary power to accept or reject the correction request. I am reinforced in the view that section 36(2)(a) confers a discretionary power on the City by the wording of section 36(2)(b), which compensates for the City's discretion to refuse a correction request under section 36(2)(a) by allowing individuals who do not receive favourable responses to correction requests to require that a statement of disagreement be attached instead. The appellant submits that, in order to deal with his appeal from the City's decision not to grant a correction request under section 36(2)(a), this office is required to investigate his allegations that the contents of the records are incorrect, decide what actually transpired, and "correct" the records by destroying them. The records to which the appellant has objected consist of "incident reports" completed by staff members, and other notes, letters and memoranda containing similar information. Some of this information consists of characterizations of the appellant by staff -- e.g. indications that his behaviour towards staff was "unacceptable" or "inappropriate", that he "became angry", etc. Staff also recorded that they "felt frightened" or had an "uneasy feeling" as a result of their interactions with him. In this respect, the records have common features with witness statements in other situations, such as workplace harassment investigations and criminal investigations. If I were to adopt the appellant's view of section 36(2), the ability of government institutions to maintain whole classes of records of this kind, in which individuals record their impressions of events, would be compromised in a way which the legislature cannot possibly have intended.


Legislation		MFIPPA 32(a) 32(b) 36(2)(b) 48(1)(e)


Subject Index		opinions/views


Published		May 30, 1996


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu