Advanced Search

[6] Which appears to address items 12, 22, 44 and 65 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report.   [...]  [7] Which appears to address items 28, 95, and 97 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report.   [...]  [8] Which appears to address items 1, 22, 26, 59, 66 and 79 identified in the chart of records remaining at issue in the mediator’s Report.

The Mediator’s Report neither indicates that it was raised at mediation, nor lists it as an unresolved issue for adjudication.   [...]  [31] The appellant had an opportunity to raise any errors or omissions in the Mediator’s Report with the mediator before the appeal was transferred to adjudication, and there is no indication on file that he did this.   [...]  [4] The Mediator’s Report indicates that the appellant was not appealing the university’s decision to withhold information in accordance with sections 21 and 49 (c.1)(ii), or information withheld as non-responsive.

[5] The mediator’s report did not identify a claim that the discretionary exemptions under sections 18(1)(c),(e) and (g) apply to record 9, but the hospital took this position in its representations.

[19] On September 30, 2014, I issued Final Order MO-3107-F. In that Order, I addressed the issue of access to an email that the police sought to withhold under section 38 (a), in conjunction with section 9(1)(d) as well as 38(b), and the offence issue that the appellant raised as set out in the Revised Mediator’s report

[32] The appellant submits that the Mediator’s Report accurately reflects the information being sought, and does not refer to a request made by the municipality for clarification of the access request.   [...]  I have reviewed the Mediator’s Report, which does not make reference to any discussions regarding the appellant obtaining the records on a USB key.

[1] The mediator’s report identified the remaining law enforcement exemption as section 8(1)(a), which the police did not challenge upon receipt of the report, but the record itself is marked as being withheld under section 38 (a), in conjunction with section 8(2) (a).

• The IESO’s letter of February 2, 2018 to the IPC mediator in response to the draft Mediator’s Report of January 23, 2018;   [...]  • The Revised Mediator’s Report of February 5, 2018; and, • The Notice of Inquiry (the NOI) sent to the IESO, dated March 2, 2018, which was based on the Revised Mediator’s Report.

[2] Although the mediator’s report and notices of inquiry sent to the parties identified 14 pages of records as being at issue, there is one more page from which the affected party’s name has been severed by the archives, thereby bringing the total number of pages at issue to 15.

According to the Mediator’s Report, only the three redacted paragraphs on page 2 of the record are at issue.

[1] Therefore, records not identified as being at issue in the Mediator’s Report, and the issue of reasonable search, will not be discussed.

[10] Subsequent to receiving the Mediator’s Report, the requester advised the mediator that she wishes to add the late filing of the appeal by appellants C and D as an issue in these appeals.

The appellant did not pursue part 4 of her request further, despite having an opportunity to respond to the Mediator’s Report and to file representations in response to the Notice of Inquiry.   [...]  The appellant did not take issue with the scope of the inquiry either upon review of the Mediator’s Report or the Notice of Inquiry.

The mediator’s report indicates that the appellant confirmed that he would make a new request for records relating to his attendance to the region’s office.   [...]  [17] Though the Mediator’s Report indicates that the appellant advised he would file a new request, the appellant provided submissions during the inquiry in support of his position that the video footage of his attendance at the region’s office should fall within the scope of this appeal.   [...]  Though the mediator’s report indicates that the scope issue was settled at mediation, I find that, notwithstanding that the scope of the original request should not include the additional records, the region should have responded to the appellant’s subsequent verbal requests, once the region was aware of them.