ORDER PO-1849
Appeal PA‑000065‑1
Ministry of the Attorney General
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), for access to copies of all documentation compiled by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) in the course of its investigation into the death of the appellant’s sister, who died while in the custody of the Windsor Police Service (the Police) on or about February 7, 1999. The appellant indicated to the Ministry that she is the personal representative of her sister’s estate.
Based upon telephone conversations with the appellant’s counsel, the Ministry understood that the appellant was requesting access to the requested information pursuant to section 66(a) of the Act, which provides that any right or power conferred on an individual by this Act may be exercised, where the individual is deceased, by the individual’s personal representative if exercise of the right or power relates to the administration of the individual’s estate. The appellant provided the Ministry with what she termed a “letter of authority” indicating that the appellant is the personal representative of the estate of the deceased individual.
The Ministry responded by granting partial access to the requested information. Access to the remainder of the records (approximately 651 pages plus audio tapes and photographs) was denied under the following provisions of the Act:
section 21(1) - invasion of privacy - with reference to the presumption against disclosure which is contained in section 21(3)(b) where disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy if the personal information was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law; and
section 14(2)(a) - law enforcement - which provides that 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.
With respect to section 66(a), the Ministry asked the appellant to provide a statement demonstrating how the information being sought relates to the administration of the estate of the deceased individual as it was not apparent from the materials provided to it.
The appellant appealed the Ministry’s rejection of her s.66(a) claim and the Ministry’s decision to deny access under sections 21(1) and 14(2)(a). The appellant indicated that the records are sought in order to assist in the administration of the estate of the deceased, including the initiation of a civil action against the Police and some of the individuals who have provided information to the SIU during its investigation.
During the mediation stage of the appeal, the Ministry provided the appellant with an Index of Records containing a brief description of each of the documents at issue, along with the exemptions claimed for each. The Ministry also agreed to provide the appellant with access to Records 112, 113, 115, 116 and 121, which are correspondence between the SIU and the appellant’s counsel, and Records 125 - 127, 128 and 129, which are media releases and press clippings which were compiled by the SIU during the course of its investigation.
In addition, the appellant indicated that she was no longer seeking access to the SIU Director’s Report to the Attorney General of Ontario, designated as Record 4 in the Index provided to the appellant.
Further mediation was not successful and the appeal was then moved into the Adjudication stage. I decided to seek the representations of the Ministry, initially. The Ministry made submissions in response to the Notice of Inquiry which were shared, in their entirety, with the appellant. Similarly, the appellant made submissions which were also shared with the Ministry. The Ministry was invited to make reply submissions on whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding that she was the personal representative of the deceased within the meaning of section 66(a). In addition, because the deceased was a citizen of the United States, the Ministry was asked to comment on whether this is a consideration which should weigh in favour of the disclosure of the information contained in the records. The Ministry then provided me with further representations by way of reply, responding to these issues.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
The section 21 personal privacy exemption applies only to information which qualifies as “personal information”, which is defined, in part, in section 2(1) of the Act to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual.
I have reviewed each of the records remaining at issue in this appeal and find that