|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1498
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Hamilton Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Hamilton Police Service (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for a copy of records forwarded to the Crown Attorney by the Police in relation to a particular fraud case in which the requester was the complainant. The Police identified a number of responsive records, and determined that all of them included the requester's personal information. After notifying three individuals whose interests might be affected by disclosure of certain records, and receiving the consent of one of these individuals, the Police granted partial access to certain records and denied access to the rest, in whole or in part, on the basis of the following exemption claims: - section 38(a), in conjunction with sections 8(1)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (g), and sections 8(2)(a) and (c) - law enforcement - section 38(b), in conjunction with section 14(1) - invasion of privacy The Police relied on the presumptions in sections 14(3)(b), (d) and (g) and the factors in sections 14(2)(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) in support of the section 38(b) exemption claim. The Police granted access to all information relating to the one individual who provided consent. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Police's decision denying access to the records. In addition, in a subsequent letter, the appellant outlined his reasons for believing that additional responsive records should exist. Specifically, he identified "will say" statements of individuals interviewed during the investigation, interview and other investigative notes of the investigating officers, notes of any meeting held between the investigation officer and defence counsel, and a forensic audit completed on the appellant's behalf. The appellant believed the author of the audit would consent to its release. Mediation was not successful in resolving the appeal, so the file was transferred to the adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry initially to the Police and the two individual who had not consented to disclosure when contacted by the Police (the affected persons). I received representations from the Police and both affected persons. I also received representations from the provincial Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (the Ministry), which is the employer of one of the affected persons. The Ministry's representations identified the possible application of the exemption in section 9(1)(b) of the Act (relations with other governments). Because this is a mandatory exemption, I sent the Police a Supplementary Notice of Inquiry on this issue, together with a copy of the Ministry's representations. The Police declined to provide any additional representations addressing this new issue. I then sent the Notice to the appellant along with the complete representations of the Ministry and one affected person, and the non-confidential portions of the representations provided by the Police and the other affected person. The appellant did not submit representations. RECORDS: The records remaining at issue in this appeal consist of the following: 1-page Fraud Over $5,000 Report, dated June 5, 1998 (partially disclosed) 2-page Fraud Over $5,000 Report, dated October 21, 1999 (partially disclosed) 1-page Fraud Over $5,000 Report, dated January 22, 2001 (partially disclosed) 1-page cover sheet concerning a fraud matter 1-page cover sheet concerning the same fraud matter 1-page narrative prepared by Police in the context of the fraud case 1-page cover sheet on the same fraud matter Long Form Information concerning the fraud charge Promise To Appear concerning the fraud charge 2-page CPIC print out Witness Control Form concerning the fraud charge 2-page case synopsis for the fraud charge (partially disclosed) 4-page statement of a police officer concerning the fraud charge 2 pages of handwritten notes of a police officer concerning the fraud charge 9-page statement of appellant concerning the fraud charge (partially disclosed) 19 pages of handwritten notes of a police officer concerning the fraud charge (partially disclosed) 1-page statement of recycled account with handwritten notations 2 pages of handwritten notes from a police officer concerning the fraud charge DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH In appeals where the appellant believes that additional records exist, as is the case in this appeal, the issue to be decided is whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for the records as required by section 17 of the Act . If I am satisfied that the search carried out was reasonable in the circumstances, the decision of the Police will be upheld. If not, I may order that additional searches be undertaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 27, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|