|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1431
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Durham Regional Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Durham Regional Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) from a solicitor representing two named businesses (the appellants). The request was for all information and documentation relating to a letter entitled "Important Notice" which had been issued by the Police to the appellants. The Police identified certain responsive records, and denied access to them based on various exemptions. The appellants appealed the Police's decision. Following notification of the appeal, the Police amended the earlier decision by identifying additional exemption claims for the records. The denial of access to the records was based on one or more of the following exemptions contained in the Act : sections 8(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) - law enforcement section 8(1)(e) - endanger life or safety section 8(1)(f) - right to fair trial section 8(1)(l) - facilitate commission of unlawful act section 14 - invasion of privacy sections 38(a) and (b) - discretion to refuse requester's own information The appellants also appealed the amended decision. During mediation, the appellants' solicitor emphasized that the request was for "... all information, documentation, memorandum and other materials ..." and that it included: any pre-investigation memoranda or correspondence indicating how and why the investigation against the two establishments was initiated and any instructions to or from the investigating officer to or from his superiors. The Mediator asked the Police to conduct a further search for all information responsive to the request, and referred in particular to the clarification provided by the appellants' solicitor. The Police conducted another search and located a video statement. The Police applied the exemptions in sections 8(1)(a), 14(3)(b), 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act to deny access to the video tape. The Police informed the Mediator that no other responsive records existed. The Police later advised the Mediator that the sections 38(a) and 38(b) exemption claims were being withdrawn. The appellants continued to object to the application of the remaining exemption claims, and also continued to maintain that further responsive records exist. Mediation was not successful in resolving all of the issues in this appeal, so the matter proceeded to the adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police initially, and received representations in response. In their representations, the Police identified the following: the investigation to which the records relate resulted in prosecutions, and substantial disclosure of the records has been made through the criminal process. Accordingly, the Police withdrew the sections 8(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (l) exemption claims for a number of records; section 14 applies to the video statement; section 8(1)(c) and section 14 apply to all other remaining records; and all of the exemptions apply to five records which had not been disclosed in the context of the criminal proceedings (the police intelligence records). The Police also provided two affidavits identifying the nature of the searches conducted in response to the request. After submitting its representations, the Police conducted a further search and identified one additional record that "may be responsive". It is a sample precedent form of the "Important Notice" letter, which was adapted for use by the Police. I sent the appellants a modified Notice of Inquiry, along with the non-confidential portions of the Police's representations. The appellants did not submit representations. RECORDS: The records at issue in this appeal consist of: two binders, each relating to one of the two appellants and containing General Incident and Arrest Reports, Supplementary Reports, Will State summaries, "Important Notice", Summonses and a Video Statement Synopsis; a video taped statement; five police intelligence records; and a sample form of the "Important Notice" letter. DISCUSSION: RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS As identified above, the Police identified one additional potentially responsive record after submitting its representations. The Police provided me with a copy of this record (a sample precedent form of the "Important Notice" letter), but did not identify it for the appellants and did not make a decision regarding access. The appellants' initial request was for "...all information, documentation, memorandum and other materials ..." relating to a letter entitled "Important Notice" which was issued by the Police to each of the appellants. This request was clarified during mediation to include records regarding how and why the investigations were initiated. In my view, the initial request alone is broad enough to encompass the sample precedent form letter. I find that this record is "reasonably related" to the request, and therefore responsive (see Orders P-880 and P-1051). I will include a provision in this order requiring the Police to issue an access decision to the appellants concerning this record. PERSONAL INFORMATION: The section 14(1) personal privacy exemption only applies to "personal information". The appellants in this case are two named corporations. As such, I find that the records do not contain "personal information" of these corporate bodies. As far as the five police intelligence records are concerned, given my findings later in this order, it is not necessary for me to make a determination as to whether these records contain personal information. "Personal information" is defined in section 2(1) of the Act , in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiabl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(3)(b)
-
8(1)(c)
-
8(1)(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 29, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|