|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1383
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Chatham-Kent 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 Chatham-Kent Police Services Board (the Police). As background to this appeal, the requester (now the appellant) made a complaint to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS) about the conduct of three members of the Amherstburg Police Service (the Amherstburg Police), including its Chief. The complaint stemmed from the appellant's concern about an "investigation" conducted by the Amherstburg Police into disparaging comments which the appellant allegedly made about the Police to a group of Girl Guides. The OCCOPS assigned the matter to the Police for investigation. In her request, the appellant sought access to records concerning her complaint against the members of the Amherstburg Police and the ensuing investigation into the complaint conducted by the Chatham-Kent Police. In its first decision on the request, the Police informed the appellant that the requested records were excluded from the scope of the Act , pursuant to section 52. In Order MO-1280, Adjudicator Donald Hale concluded that the records were subject to the Act and, among other things, ordered the Police to provide the appellant with a decision letter with respect to those records which it has identified as responsive to her request and ordered it to conduct a further search for records responsive to the request. Subsequently, the Police conducted a further search, located additional information, and issued a new access decision with respect to all records located. The Police granted partial access to the information in the records and relied on the following sections of the Act to deny access to the remainder: Section 6(1)(b) substance of in-camera deliberations Section 7(1) advice or recommendations of an officer, employee or consultant Section 8(1)(d) confidential source of information Section 8(2)(a) report prepared in the course of law enforcement Section 9(1)(b) information received in confidence from a government Section 10(1)(d) third party information Section 11(c) prejudice to economic interests Section 11(d) injurious to financial interests Section 12 solicitor-client privilege Section 14(2)(h) information supplied in confidence Section 14(2)(i) damage to reputation Section 14(3)(a) medical or other history, diagnosis, condition, treatment or evaluation Section 14(3)(b) investigation into a possible violation of law Section 14(3)(d) relates to employment or educational history Section 14(3)(g) personal recommendations or evaluations Section 14(3)(h) racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or religious or political beliefs Section 38(b) discretion to deny personal information I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police, initially, inviting their representations on the issues raised by the appeal. No representations were received. The appellant was then invited to submit representations, and has. RECORDS: The Police identified 76 pages of records as responsive to the appellant's request. Access was granted to pages 1-6, 10, 11, 22 to 29, 43 to 45, 54, 56 to 60, 69, 70 and 74 in their entirety. These pages are accordingly not at issue. Access was granted to parts of pages 7 to 9 and 30. Access was denied to the entirety of pages 12 to 21, 31 to 42, 46 to 53, 55, 61 to 68 and 71 to 73 (except for some incidental information such as standard-form headings). Of the pages from which portions have been withheld, pages 7 to 9 consist of memos to the Police from a named inspector, on Chatham-Kent Police Service letterhead, about the appellant's complaint. Page 30 is a letter from the OCCOPS, from which the name of the addressee and the telephone number of the writer have been severed. Of the pages which have been withheld in their entirety, pages 12 to 17 consist of typed statements given by the officers who were the subjects of the complaint and investigation, bearing their signatures. Pages 18 to 21 consist of a handwritten report of an interview with a witness, including such information as the individual's address, employer, date of birth and telephone number, and the name of the interviewee. Pages 36 to 37 are a typewritten version of pages 18 to 21, and are identical to pages 51 and 52, and pages 66 and 67. The handwritten version at pages 18 to 21 contains almost, although not completely, identical information to the typewritten versions. Page 31 is a letter to the OCCOPS from one of the subject officers. Page 32 is a memo to the Amherstburg Police Services Board (the Amherstburg Board) from one of the subject officers, attaching a report which is found at pages 33 and 34. Page 35 is a printout of an electronic message. Page 38 is a memo from one of the subject officers to the Board. Pages 39 to 40 are a letter from one of the subject officers to a named individual. The same letter, with the addition of letterhead and a date, is found at pages 49 to 50 and again, at pages 64 and 65. Page 41 is a memo from one of the subject officers to the Board. Page 42 is a letter from a named individual to one of the subject officers, and is duplicated at page 53 and again at page 68. Pages 46 to 48 consist of a report from an individual of undisclosed identity, and is found duplicated at pages 61 to 63. Of the remaining records, page 55 is a memo from one of the subjects to the Amherstburg Board. Page 71 is a letter from a law firm to the Amherstburg Board, as are pages 72 and 73. Page 75 is a letter from the Amherstburg Board to a law firm. Finally, page 76 is a duplicate of page 73. As I have indicated, there are several documents which appear in duplicate and even triplicate in the records. It appears that this is so because some documents appear on their own, and again as attachments to other documents. It also appears that some of the documents which have been withheld in their entirety by the Police may have been attached to correspondence sent by the appellant to others. For instance, pages 46 to 53 and 61 to 68 appear to have been sent by the appellant as part of a fax transmission to the OCCOPS dated November 13, 1997. CONCLUSION: I allow the application of sections 14, 38(b) and 12 of the Act to some of the records, order disclosure of other records, and reject the application of all other exemptions relied on by the Police. DISCUSSION: IN CAMERA DELIBERATIONS Section 6(1)(b) permits an institution to refuse access to a record that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public. In order to rely on section 6(1)(b), it must be established that: a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them took place; and that a statute authorizes the holding of this meeting in the absence of the public; and that disclosure of the record at issue would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of this meeting. [see Orders M-64, M-98, M-102, M-219 and MO-1248] The Police have re
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 22, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|