|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1390
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Niagara Regional Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) from a decision of the Niagara Regional Police Services Board (the Police). The appellant submitted a request to the Police for "a copy of all documents, notes, witness statements, lists of potential witnesses, lists of potential physical evidence and/or copies of any physical evidence that came into the possession of the Niagara Regional Police" with respect to a particular investigation. The Police denied access to all the records pursuant to sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(2)(a) [law enforcement], and 14 [invasion of privacy] of the Act . The appellant appealed the decision of the Police. During mediation, the Police agreed to withdraw from the scope of the appeal the exemption claimed under section 8(2)(a). This Office provided the Police with a Notice of Inquiry summarizing the facts and issues in the appeal. In the course of responding to the Notice of Inquiry, the Police modified their earlier decision and granted partial access to the records. The Police also submitted that they were entitled to rely on the exemptions in sections 38(a)[discretion to refuse requester's own information], and 38(b)[invasion of privacy]. The Police subsequently located an additional record and a videotape, granting partial access to these records and relying on the same exemptions claimed above for the portions of these records which they refused to disclose. The Police submitted representations to this Office, the non-confidential portions of which were sent to the appellant together with an amended Notice of Inquiry. The appellant did not submit representations. RECORDS: Three groups of records and a videotape are at issue. The first group consists of 17 pages and includes an investigation report, a supplementary report, a property report, and an arrest report (Group 1: pages 1 to 17). The second group is the appellant's sealed criminal file consisting of 43 pages and includes instructions to crown counsel, a CPIC print-out, fingerprints, bail records, and duplicates of many of the documents in the first group of records (Group 2: pages 18 to 58). The third group is the investigating officer's file consisting of 92 pages and includes seven witness statements, information on the victim, the victim's family, and victims of similar crimes, photographs of possible suspects, correspondence from named individuals, a newspaper article, and an investigation report (Group 3: pages 59 to 150). The videotape was taken at a financial institution. The following chart summarizes the Police's decisions regarding the records: RECORDS FULL ACCESS GRANTED PARTIAL ACCESS GRANTED ACCESS DENIED Group 1 (pages 1-17) 11, 17 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16 3-4, 6, 15 Group 2 (pages 18-58) 18-23, 25-28, 31-35, 42-44, 46-49, 51-55, 58 24, 29-30, 36-37, 45, 50, 56-57 38-41 Group 3 (pages 59-150) 134-140, 142, 144-146, 148, 149 141, 143, 147, 150 59-133 Videotape YES The following pages have been disclosed to the appellant and are therefore no longer at issue in this appeal: 11, 17-23, 25-28, 31-35, 42-44, 46-49, 51-55, 58, 134-140, 142, 144-146, 148, 149. DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION In order to determine which parts of the Act apply, it is necessary to decide whether the records contain personal information, and if so, to whom that personal information relates. 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. In this case, the police investigation relates to the offences of fraud and theft under the Criminal Code . Since the Police initially charged the appellant in this matter, but later withdrew the charges, the records contain the personal information of both the appellant and individuals other than the appellant. I have reviewed the records that the Police have denied access to and find that: i) pages 30, 36, 37, 40, 56, 57, 115, contain the personal information of the appellant ii) pages 1-7, 15, 38, 41, 59-114, 118-124, 141, 143, 150 contain only the personal information of individuals other than the appellant iii) pages 8-10, 12-14, 16, 24, 29, 39, 45, 50, 116, 117, 125-133, 147 contain the personal information of both the appellant and individuals other than the appellant DISCRETION TO REFUSE REQUESTER'S OWN INFORMATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT 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(a) of the Act , an institution has discretion to deny access to an individual's own personal information in instances where certain exemptions, including section 8, would apply. Sections 8(1)(a) and (b) provide that: A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to (a) interfere with a law enforcement matter; (b) interfere with an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result; The purpose of the sections 8(1)(a) and (b
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 22, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|