Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
ORDER On January 4, 1994, the undersigned was appointed Inquiry Officer and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act . BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information related to an incident which involved the requester and another individual and resulted in the arrest of the requester. The request enumerated ten categories of information to which access was sought. The requester identified (by name and badge number) two police officers who arrested him. He also referred to a third police officer who was in attendance at the time of his arrest (whose identity he did not know), a plain clothes officer who was later involved in the police response to the incident, and a police photographer. In their initial search for responsive records, the Police located the notes of one of the officers whom the requester had identified as having arrested him, as well as the notes of the photographer. Partial access was granted to the notes of the officer, with portions withheld under section 14(1) of the Act . Access was denied to the photographer's notes under section 14(1). The decision letter also identified that all other records relating to the incident had been destroyed. The requester appealed the denial of access. During mediation, the Police disclosed the identity and the notes of the police photographer. Also during mediation, the appellant indicated that the basis of his appeal was that he did not accept the position of the Police that the responsive records no longer existed. He also agreed that he did not wish to pursue the issue of the parts of the records which were withheld under section 14(1), and which the Police had identified as the personal information of other individuals. Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Police was sent to the Police and the appellant. During the inquiry stage of the appeal, and prior to submitting their representations, the Police conducted a further search. As a result, they located and disclosed the appellant's record of arrest and related materials, with some portions withheld under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Act . These records, while related to the subject matter of the request, do not fall within the classes of records requested by the appellant and, therefore, they are not at issue in this appeal. ISSUE/DISCUSSION: The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Representations on this subject were received from the Police. The appellant advised that he wished his letter of appeal and all pertinent material on file to be considered as his representations. The representations submitted by the Police outline the steps they took to locate responsive records. At the request stage, the Police searched their Records and Information Security Unit microfiche files. They also sent memoranda to the units of the two police officers identified by the appellant as having arrested him, to obtain their notes. They contacted the police photographer by telephone. In addition, they contacted the division where the appellant had been taken after his arrest to determine whether the notes of the officer-in-charge at that time could be located. The records located as a result of these searches are those referred to in the initial decision letter referred to above. During the inquiry stage the Police also searched the Criminal Records file and, as indicated prr Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 Dear Ms Maillard: Re: Investigation Number I91-10P Ministry of the Attorney General As per our letter of March 19, 1991 in which we indicated that our office had received a complaint from a member of the public regarding the practices within the government on the sale of government assets by the Ministry of Government Services. Specifically, equipment that originated from the Ministry of the Attorney General that may contain personal information. The complainant has indicated that on March 2, 1991 he observed the sale of vertical flip charts during a public auction of government assets. Apparently, these charts contained thousands of abstracts of obligations, including the debtor's name, the creditors's name and the amounts of the original judgments. The complainant has also indicated that these vertical flip charts were originally maintained by each judicial district Sheriff's Office of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The complainant has indicated that he does not want to cause any hardships for your Ministry, but would like the institution to be aware of the situation and advised of any corrective action taken by the Ministry. While we did not establish the nature of the information (i.e. whether or not it was "personal"), we would like to request that - 2 - the judicial district Sheriff's Offices be contacted and notified of our concerns. Specifically, if it is determined that the information contained on these flip charts is "personal" rather than "public", it should be removed prior to being transferred to the Ministry of Government Services for auction. Once you have had an opportunity to review the matter, we would appreciate it if you could inform us of what action has been taken so that we can put the complainant's mind at ease. If you should require additional information on the matter, please do not hesitate to call Nick Magis
Decision Content
ORDER M-269
Appeal M-9300395
Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board
ORDER
On January 4, 1994, the undersigned was appointed Inquiry Officer and received a delegation of the power and duty to conduct inquiries and make orders under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to information related to an incident which involved the requester and another individual and resulted in the arrest of the requester.
The request enumerated ten categories of information to which access was sought. The requester identified (by name and badge number) two police officers who arrested him. He also referred to a third police officer who was in attendance at the time of his arrest (whose identity he did not know), a plain clothes officer who was later involved in the police response to the incident, and a police photographer.
In their initial search for responsive records, the Police located the notes of one of the officers whom the requester had identified as having arrested him, as well as the notes of the photographer. Partial access was granted to the notes of the officer, with portions withheld under section 14(1) of the Act. Access was denied to the photographer's notes under section 14(1). The decision letter also identified that all other records relating to the incident had been destroyed. The requester appealed the denial of access.
During mediation, the Police disclosed the identity and the notes of the police photographer. Also during mediation, the appellant indicated that the basis of his appeal was that he did not accept the position of the Police that the responsive records no longer existed. He also agreed that he did not wish to pursue the issue of the parts of the records which were withheld under section 14(1), and which the Police had identified as the personal information of other individuals.
Further mediation was not successful and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Police was sent to the Police and the appellant.
During the inquiry stage of the appeal, and prior to submitting their representations, the Police conducted a further search. As a result, they located and disclosed the appellant's record of arrest and related materials, with some portions withheld under sections 14(1) and 38(b) of the Act. These records, while related to the subject matter of the request, do not fall within the classes of records requested by the appellant and, therefore, they are not at issue in this appeal.
ISSUE/DISCUSSION:
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Police conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.
Representations on this subject were received from the Police. The appellant advised that he wished his letter of appeal and all pertinent material on file to be considered as his representations.
The representations submitted by the Police outline the steps they took to locate responsive records. At the request stage, the Police searched their Records and Information Security Unit microfiche files. They also sent memoranda to the units of the two police officers identified by the appellant as having arrested him, to obtain their notes. They contacted the police photographer by telephone. In addition, they contacted the division where the appellant had been taken after his arrest to determine whether the notes of the officer-in-charge at that time could be located. The records located as a result of these searches are those referred to in the initial decision letter referred to above.
During the inquiry stage the Police also searched the Criminal Records file and, as indicated previously, this resulted in the disclosure of the record of arrest and related materials referred to above.
The Police had also advised the Appeals Officer that, during mediation, they had contacted the arresting officers to see whether they could identify the third officer whom the appellant believed was present at the time of his arrest. These officers were unable to identify any third officer who might have been present. In addition, the record of arrest only referred to the two officers mentioned by the appellant has having been present when the arrest took place.
Where a requester provides sufficient details about the records to which he is seeking access and the Police indicate that no further responsive records can be located, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Police have made a reasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. In my view, the Act does not require that the Police prove to the degree of absolute certainty that such additional records do not exist.
After having reviewed the representations and other materials submitted to me, I am satisfied that the search conducted by the Police for records responsive to the appellant’s request was reasonable in the circumstances.
ORDER:
I uphold the decision of the Police.
Original signed by: February 14, 1994
John Higgins
Inquiry Officer