ORDER 37
Appeal 880074
Ministry of the Solicitor General
O R D E R
This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) or a request for access to personal information under subsection 48(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner.
The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this order are as follows:
On January 29, 1988, the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the "institution") received a request for access to statements or allegations made by four individuals, whose names and addresses were provided to the institution by the requester, with respect to complaints against him alleging misconduct as a police officer both on and off duty.
Following receipt of the request, the institution issued notices to affected persons (the individuals named in the request) in accordance with section 28 of the Act, and received representations from them.
By letter dated March 18, 1988, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator for the institution wrote to the requester advising that "...partial access is granted to documents relating to your request. Access is denied to documents containing personal information under sections 14 and 21 of the Act. These provision applies [sic] because the release of these documents would constitute a breach of confidentiality and an unjustified invasion of privacy".
By letter dated March 28, 1988, the requester appealed the decision of the head. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution and the affected persons previously identified by the institution.
The records relevant to this appeal were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer from my staff, and between March 28 and July 21, 1988, attempts were made to effect a settlement in the matter. These mediation efforts were unsuccessful.
On July 21, 1988, I sent notice to all parties that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. Accompanying this notice was an Appeals Officer's Report. By letter dated August 4, 1988, I advised the parties of my decision to deal with the matter by way of written representations and requested submissions by August 31, 1988. Representations were received from all parties and I have considered them in making my Order.
The issues arising in this appeal are as follows:
A. Whether the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information", as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Act.
B. Whether the exemption provided by subsection 14(2)(a) of the Act applies to any record.
C. If the answer to Issue B is in the affirmative, whether the exemption provided by subsection 49(a) of the Act applies in the circumstances of this appeal.
D. If the answer to Issue A is in the affirmative, whether the exemptions provided by subsections 21(1) and 49(b) of the Act apply in the circumstances of this appeal.
The records for which exemptions have been claimed are Complaint Processing Reports; an internal memorandum; statements of individuals; and parts of a police officer's notebook.
The Complaint Processing Reports are forms used by the Ontario Provincial Police to accept and record complaints from members of the public against officers of the Ontario Provincial Police. The Reports contain the following information: the time and date the complaint was received; the complainant's name, home and business addresses and phone numbers; the location of the alleged incident; the name of the Police Officer against whom the complaint was filed; the particulars of the complaint and action taken; the name of the person in the Provincial Police Force who received the complaint; and the name and signature of the detachment commander.
The internal memorandum contains a summary of the investigation of the allegations, together with an outline of the evidence, the findings of the officer who prepared the memorandum, and any recommendations made by that officer.
The statements are the accounts given by individuals regarding allegations of misconduct against the appellant; and the police officer's note book contains information received from individuals during investigation of the complaint.
Before addressing the specific issues raised in this appeal, it should be noted that the purposes of the Act as set out in subsections 1(a) and (b) are:
(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and,
(b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information.
Further, section 53 of the Act provides that where a head refuses access to a record, the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head.
ISSUE A: Whether the information contained in the records qualifies as "personal information", as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Act.
In all cases where the request involves access to personal information it is my responsibility, before deciding whether the exemption claimed by the institution applies, to ensure that the information in question falls within the definition of "personal information" in subsection 2(1) of the Act, and to determine whether this information relates to the appellant, another individual or both.
Subsection 2(1) of the Act states,
"Personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,
(a) information relating to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,
(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,
(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,
(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except where they relate to another individual,
(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and
(h) the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual".
In my view, all information contained in the records at issue in this appeal falls within the definition of personal information under subsection 2(1). I find that the statements and