ORDER P-1609
Appeal P_9800096
Ministry of Community and Social Services
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The request was for access to information relating to records maintained by the Ministry with respect to three named agencies (the affected parties) during a specified time period. The affected parties operate group homes and services for developmentally delayed individuals residing in the Ottawa area. The requester represents the bargaining agent for some employees of these agencies.
Two earlier requests from the same requester for similar information resulted in appeals to this office which were resolved by Orders P-1464 and P-1540. The current request was for similar records covering a later time period. In Order P-1464, Inquiry Officer Laurel Cropley observed that the history of the affected parties negotiations with the union, “... has been somewhat acrimonious to say the least.” The materials submitted in the course of this appeal by the parties, as well as the records themselves, indicate to me that this situation continues.
The Ministry located a large number of responsive records and granted access to portions of them. In addition, pursuant to section 28 of the Act, the Ministry notified each of the three affected parties, seeking their views on the disclosure of the information contained in the records.
Following receipt of the submissions of the affected parties, the Ministry provided the requester with an index describing the exemptions which it relied upon to deny access to the responsive records. Access to some records was granted, in whole or in part. Access to the remaining information was denied under sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) (third party information) and the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1).
The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry’s decision to deny access to the records and submits that additional records responsive to his request exist. In a second decision letter following the initiation of the appeal, the Ministry released additional records, in whole or in part, to the appellant.
During the mediation of the appeal, the appellant agreed that he was no longer seeking access to any personal information relating to the agencies’ clients or their families which may be contained in the records. The appellant also agreed that he would no longer seek access to Records 404, 500 to 504, 505 to 520, 521 to 536 and 537. Accordingly, these records and much of the personal information contained in the remaining documents are no longer at issue in this appeal.
A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant, the Ministry and to the three affected parties named in the request. Submissions were received from the Ministry, the appellant and from counsel on behalf of all three affected parties.
With its submissions, the Ministry has withdrawn its reliance on section 17(1) with respect to most of the responsive records. It continues to rely on the exemption in sections 17(1)(a) and (b) for Records 179-181 and 403 and section 17(1)(a) for a portion of Record 441 only. However, the affected parties continue to object to the disclosure of Records 1 to 5, 8 to 12, 13, 15, 17 to 19, 20, 21, 22 to 23, 24 to 25, 27 to 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 to 42, 61 to 62, 80 to 93, 102 to 126, 131 to 136, 165 to 168, 179 to 181, 183 to 185, 187 to 189, 274 to 277, 403, 406 to 497, 549 and 550 to 620 under section 17(1)(a) and Records 17, 18, 19, 20, 63 to 68, 102, 114 to 136, 167, 168, 179, 180, 181, 274 to 277, 403, 406 to 497, 549 and 550 to 620 under section 17(1)(b).
PRELIMINARY ISSUE:
RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS
In its decision letter, the Ministry indicated that Records 34, 72 and 408 were not responsive to the appellant’s request, despite being identified in its index. In its submissions, the Ministry advises that Records 34 and 408 were disclosed to the appellant following the initiation of the appeal. Accordingly, these records are no longer at issue.
The Ministry also states that Record 72 is an e-mail message which relates to another agency in the Ottawa-Carlton area which serves the needs of developmentally handicapped individuals. As the information in this record does not relate to any of the three named agencies identified in the appellant’s request, I find that this information is not reasonably related to the request and is not, accordingly, responsive to the request. I will not, therefore, address Record 72 further in this order.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
As indicated above, the appellant has withdrawn his appeal with respect to any information which may identify clients of the agencies or their families. As a result, this information is no longer at issue. I have reviewed the contents of the records and find that the following records contain the personal information of clients of the agencies and/or their families:
All of Records 51, 63 to 68, 69, 137 to 154, 199 to 200, 201 to 212, 213 to 217, 218 to 219, 221 to 226, 227, 228 to 235, 238 to 2