|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1579
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9800039
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) received a request
under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The request was for
access to records relating to an investigation undertaken by the Ontario Provincial Police (the
OPP) Anti-Rackets Branch in 1981 which was reflected in a Statement-Police Report that
accompanied the request. The requester is one of the individuals who was the subject of the
investigation.
The Ministry identified two records as responsive to the request and granted access to a portion
of one of them. Access to the remaining information was denied pursuant to the following
exemptions contained in the Act:
× law enforcement - section 14(2)(a)
× information published or available - section 22(a)
× discretion to refuse requester’s own information - section 49(a)
× invasion of privacy - section 49(b)
The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry’s decision to deny access to the
requested records. A Notice of Inquiry was provided by this office to the appellant and the
Ministry. Representations were received from both parties. With its submissions, the Ministry
included a copy of a letter to the appellant disclosing to him one of the records at issue, a
Statement of Claim dated July 1985 which was filed with the District Court of Ontario (as it was
then) in Sudbury. Section 22(a) was claimed to apply only to this record. Accordingly, I need
not consider the possible application of the section 22(a) exemption to the remaining record, a
four-page summary of evidence prepared by a Detective Sergeant with the OPP’s Anti-Rackets
Branch dated May 15, 1981.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Under section 2(1) of the Act, “personal information” is defined to mean, in part, recorded
information about an identifiable individual. I have reviewed the record remaining at issue and
find that it contains the personal information of the appellant, as well as other identifiable
individuals.
DISCRETION TO REFUSE APPELLANT’S OWN INFORMATION
Under section 49(a) of the Act, the Ministry has the discretion to deny access to an individual’s
own personal information in instances where certain exemptions would otherwise apply to that
information. Section 49(a) states:
A head may refuse to disclose to the individual to whom the information relates
personal information,
where section 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or 22 would apply
to the disclosure of that personal information; [emphasis added]
- 2 -
[IPC Order P-1579/June 9, 1998]
The Ministry has exercised its discretion to refuse access to the records at issue which contain
the appellant’s personal information under section 14(2)(a). In order to determine whether the
exemption provided by section 49(a) applies to the information in the record, I will first consider
whether the exemption in section 14(2)(a) applies.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
In order for a record to qualify under section 14(2)(a) of the Act, the Ministry must satisfy each
part of the following three-part test:
1. The record must be a report; and
2. The record must have been prepared in the course of law enforcement,
inspections or investigation; and
3. The record must have been prepared by an agency which has the function
of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law.
[Order 200]
The record relates to an investigation undertaken by the OPP’s Anti-Rackets Branch into the
activities of a number of individuals with a view to determining whether a violation of the
Criminal Code may have occurred. I find that the OPP is clearly a law enforcement agency and
the record was prepared in the course of a law enforcement investigation. Parts 2 and 3 of the
test have, therefore, been satisfied.
The word “report” is not defined in the Act. However, previous orders have found that in order
to qualify as a report, a record must consist of a formal statement or account of the results of the
collection and consideration of information. Generally speaking, results would not include mere
observations or recordings of fact (Orders 390 and P-1422).
The Ministry submits that the record was the official formal accounting of facts regarding the
investigation which was conducted. It goes on to indicate that this report provided information
and/or opinions gathered as a result of interviews with the subject of the investigation. The
Ministry then suggests that “the information was assessed, evaluated and were then submitted as
a report with a final disposition”.
The appellant concedes that the record likely qualifies for exemption under section 14(2)(a). He
argues, however, that he should be provided with access to it as he may already have a copy and
because of the passage of time. I am unable to determine, based on the submissions made by the
appellant, whether he has already received a copy of this document through some other access
avenue. In addition, the passage of time does not lessen the application of the exemption in
section 14(2)(a).
I have reviewed the record at issue and find that it contains both recordings of fact and certain
conclusions reached by the officer who prepared the record based on his understanding of those
facts. In my view, the record qualifies as a “report” for the purposes of section 14(2)(a) as it
- 3 -
[IPC Order P-1579/June 9, 1998]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 09, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Review
|
|
Requester's application dismissed July 18, 2006
John Doe v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2006] O.J. No. 2916, Toronto Doc. 458/98 (Div. Ct.)
Divisional Court Decision
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|