ORDER P-1239
Appeal P-9600107
Ontario Human Rights Commission
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The appellant requested information under the Act from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). The information pertains to the appellant’s case file with the OHRC. In his request, the appellant specifically referred to “the final Commissioner’s report” regarding his case as one document that he was particularly interested in receiving.
The OHRC identified the contents of its investigation file regarding the appellant’s complaint as being responsive to this request and provided the majority of the information contained in it to the appellant. The OHRC withheld the remaining information in the investigation file, in whole or in part, under the following sections of the Act:
advice and recommendations - section 13
law enforcement report - section 14(2)(a)
invasion of privacy - sections 21(1) and 49(b)
discretion to refuse requester’s own information - section 49(a)
In appealing this decision, the appellant stated that he submitted a request for the final Commissioner’s report regarding his case. He indicated that this report was not included in the records sent to him by the OHRC.
Upon receipt of the Confirmation of Appeal, the OHRC advised this office that as a result of a telephone conversation with the appellant prior to processing this request, it was under the impression that he wanted access to his complete file. The OHRC indicated further that subsequent to his receipt of the disclosed materials, the appellant contacted its Freedom of Information and Privacy office with regard to the “final Commissioner’s report”. At that time he was advised that no such record exists.
In his letter of appeal, the appellant reiterated that he wanted a copy of this report as well as all other related materials. In my view, the appellant has raised the adequacy of search as an additional issue in this appeal.
This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the OHRC and the appellant. Both parties submitted representations to this office in response to this Notice. The OHRC’s representations include an affidavit sworn by its Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the Co-ordinator).
In his representations, the appellant expresses his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the OHRC handled the investigation of his complaint. He believes that his human and Charter rights have been violated and that the OHRC’s processing of his complaint was flawed and based on inaccurate information. He indicates that he requires the requested information to prove his allegations against the OHRC.
The records at issue in this appeal consist of various memoranda, internal OHRC documents generated by staff during the investigation of the appellant’s complaint, and draft documents and decisions.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Under section 2(1) of the Act, “personal information” is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. The records at issue pertain to the OHRC’s investigation into the appellant’s complaint. I find that all of the records at issue contain the appellant’s personal information. I find this to be the case even where the appellant is not referred to by name, as the information in the records is sufficiently connected to the investigation to render it personal to him within the meaning of the definition.
I find that some records also contain the personal information of individuals other than the appellant (Records 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15). For the most part, this personal information is intertwined with that of the appellant’s in such a way that it is not severable.
With respect to Record 8, however, which contains the Human Rights Officer’s (the Officer’s) notes, only three lines pertain to individuals other than the appellant. Once this information is severed, the remaining information in this record pertains only to the appellant.
Similarly, only portions of Record 12 (the Record of Investigation) contain the personal information of the appellant and other individuals. Once this information is severed, the remaining portions of this record relate to the steps taken in processing the appellant’s complaint.
The OHRC claims that section 49(b) (invasion of privacy) applies to exempt the personal information in Records 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 from disclosure, and that section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) applies to exempt the remaining information from disclosure.
Section 47(1) of the Act gives individuals a general right of access to their own personal information held by a government body. Section 49 provides a number of exceptions to this general right of access.
DISCRETION TO REFUSE REQUESTER’S OWN INFORMATION
Under section 49(a) of the Act, the OHRC has the discretion to deny access to records which contain an individual’s own personal information in instances where certain exemptions would otherwise apply to that information. The exemptions listed in section 49(a) include both of the exemptions claimed with respect to the records at issue, namely law enforcement (section 14) and advice or recommendations (section 13).
LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORT
The OHRC claims that Records 3, 6, 13 and 16 are exempt under section 14(2)(a). This section provides:
A head may refuse to disclose a record,
that is a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, inspections or investigations by an agency which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law.
Record 3 is an Investigation Plan prepared by the Officer. It contains a summary of the parties’ positions and identifies the relevant issues. It also records the facts or information relevant to each issue and includes possible sources of evidence. In my view, this record does not contain any formal accounting of the results of the collation and consideration of this information (Order 200). Accordingly, I find that it does not qualify as a “report” within the meaning of section 14(2)(a). Record 3 is, therefore,