|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
M-243
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the following records about a deceased individual (the deceased): A copy of the full police investigation report respecting the death of the deceased, including the names of all persons contacted by the police and any information given by such persons. The request was made by the representative of the two sons (the sons) of the deceased. The Police initially responded to the request by stating: Before an institution can respond to a request for the personal information of another individual, we must be provided with an authorization from said individual consenting to the release of his/her personal information to an agent or representative. The Police forwarded a copy of section 54(a) of the Act to the requester and requested photocopies of the documents certifying the sons' position as executor(s), the relevance of the requested information to the administration of the estate of the deceased and an authorization from the sons to authorize response to the requester as their representative. The requester then provided the Police with affidavits of the sons. Each affidavit indicates the following: (1) That the affiant is the son of the deceased. (2) The date of birth of the affiant. (3) That the deceased died without a will and without any substantial assets and consequently there was no one appointed as executor/executrix, that the proceeds of a small insurance policy of the deceased were paid to the affiant and his siblings, and that the estate was not administered. (4) That the requester's firm has been retained as representative and authorizes the Police to respond directly to the requester's firm. The Police then issued a decision denying access in total to the requested records on the basis of the exemptions provided by sections 8(2)(a) and 14(1) of the Act . The Police indicated that they had considered the application of section 54(a) of the Act to the request, but decided that it did not apply because the individual who made the access decision was not satisfied that the affidavits signed by the sons and the purpose for which access to the record was being sought met the requirements of the Act as relating to the administration of the estate. The requester appealed the decision of the Police. During mediation, the Police disclosed to the appellant some records to which access had initially been denied. The Police also located additional records which are responsive to the request. The Police issued a second decision letter identifying the specific exemptions applied to deny access to the remaining records. In addition to the exemptions cited previously, the Police claimed the application of the exemptions in sections 8(1)(l) and 38(b) of the Act . As well, the Police identified certain pages of the record as not being responsive to the request. Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Police was sent to the Police and the appellant. A supplementary Notice of Inquiry expanding on some of the issues initially identified was also sent to the Police and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. While these representations were being considered, Commissioner Tom Wright issued Order M-170 which interpreted several statutory provisions of the Act in a way which differed from the interpretation in previous orders. Since a new approach to the operation of the Act was being adopted and because the same statutory provisions are at issue in the present appeal, it was determined that copies of Order M-170 should be provided to the parties. The parties were then given the opportunity to state whether the contents of Order M-170 would cause them to change or supplement the representations which they had previously made. No additional representations were received from either party. In their representations, the Police indicated that they were no longer relying on the exemption provided by section 8(2)(a) of the Act . As this is a discretionary exemption, I will not consider it in this order. THE RECORDS: The Police identified 522 pages of records as being responsive to this request. During mediation they granted access in full to 180 pages and partial access to another 145 pages. The pages remaining in issue and the exemptions claimed by the Police for each may be described as follows: Portions of 140 pages of responsive records, withheld pursuant to sections 14(1)(f), 14(3)(b), 14(3)(d), 14(3)(f) and 38(b) of the Act . 171 pages of responsive records withheld in their entirety pursuant to sections 14(1)(f), 14(3)(a), 14(3)(b), 14(3)(g) and 38(b). All of the above pages or parts thereof consist of witness statements, excerpts from Police officers' notebooks, occurrence reports and supplementary reports and photographs prepared during the investigation into the death of the deceased. The Police also withheld 26 pages in their entirety on the basis that they are not responsive to the request. I have reviewed these pages and I agree that the information contained in these pages falls outside the scope of the request. Accordingly, I will not consider them in this order. In addition, the only information withheld from Pages 371, 383, 384, 407 and 408 consists of computer terminal address numbers of computer data banks. In my view, this information is not responsive to the request and will, therefore, not be considered in this order. As the Police denied access to this information on the basis of section 8(1)(l) of the Act , I also need not consider the application of this exemption. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A: Whether the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information" as defined in section 2(1) of the Act . B: Whether section 54(a) of the Act applies to the records in the circumstances of this appeal. C: If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 14 of the Act applies. D: If the answer to Issue A is yes, whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 38(b) of the Act applies. E: Whether the
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 12, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|