Access to Information Orders

ORDER P-902

 

Appeals P_9400294, P-9400295, P-9400296, P_9400297, P_9400298 and P_9400299

 

Ministry of Community and Social Services

 

 

NATURE OF THE APPEALS:

 

These are appeals under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The appellant submitted six requests to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) for access to information related to the funding provided by the Ministry to the Grandview Survivors Support Group (the GSSG) and/or individual members of the group from its inception in late 1991 or early 1992 until December 31, 1993.  In each request, the appellant listed a number of specific documents that he sought.

 

The GSSG is a group composed of women who previously had been wards of the Grandview Training School for Girls. These women were involved in negotiations with the provincial government to receive compensation for incidents which occurred while they were detained  at the home.

 

The Ministry located records which were responsive to four of the requests, but did not release any of these documents to the appellant.  In denying access to these records, the Ministry relied on the following exemptions contained in the Act:

 

•                   advice or recommendations - section 13(1)

•                   law enforcement - sections 14(1)(a) and (b)

•                   right to a fair trial - section 14(1)(f)

•                   economic and other interests - section 18(1)(e)

•                   proposed plans, policies or projects of an institution

•                   section 18(1)(g)

•                   solicitor-client privilege - section 19

•                   invasion of privacy - section 21

 

The appellant appealed the denial of access to the Commissioner's office.  Appeals P_9400294, P-9400297, P-9400298 and P-9400299 were opened to address these issues.

 

The Ministry indicated that no records existed which responded to the remaining two requests.  These decisions were also appealed to the Commissioner's office which opened Appeals P_9400295 and P-9400296.

 

A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, the Ministry and the GSSG.  Representations were received from the Ministry only.

 

The records at issue are described in Appendix "A" to this order.  In certain cases, the record numbers are not sequential owing to the fact that the appellant clarified and narrowed the scope of his appeals during mediation. 

 

There are a large number of records at issue in Appeals P-9400294 and P-9400299.  For ease of analysis, I have classified the records in each of these files according to the nature of the documents.  For example, the groupings readily identify those documents that consist of correspondence to and from legal counsel.  This classification is found in Appendix "B" and is based on my examination of the records themselves.

 

The Ministry has claimed that each exemption applies to all the records.

 

In addition, during my review of the records I formed the view that the Cabinet records exemption in section 12 of the Act might apply to some of the records.  As this is a mandatory exemption, I will consider its application where appropriate.

 

PRELIMINARY MATTER

 

In its representations on the application of the law enforcement exemptions, the Ministry states that it:

 

... is not able to make more complete representations on this issue but can only proceed with the knowledge that release of the documents could affect the interests of a fair trial or any prosecutions, based upon the fact that there is an ongoing investigation.  It may be appropriate to seek further submissions on this issue from the appropriate parties.

 

With respect to the application of section 18(1)(g)(proposed plans of an institution), the Ministry indicates that:

 

... As the matter [of compensation packages] is being handled by the Attorney General, it may be appropriate to seek further submissions.

 

As I understand these comments, the Ministry appears to be suggesting that perhaps the views of the Ministry of the Attorney General and other "appropriate parties", such as those conducting the ongoing investigations, should be sought with respect to the disclosure of these records.

 

The procedural scheme established by the Act clearly contemplates that the government will speak with one voice with respect to requests for access to government records.  The legislation contains various provisions which contemplate that the institution which receives the request may canvass other government institutions, if necessary.

 

For example, when a request for access to a record is made, the institution which receives the request is required to determine whether or not the record requested falls within its custody or control (section 25 of the Act).  In the event that the institution to which the request is directed does not have custody or control, the request must then be transferred to the institution that does have custody or control of the record.

 

Where an institution receives a request for access to a record and the institution considers that another institution has a greater interest in the record, then the request and, if necessary, the record may be transferred to the institution with the "greater interest in the record".  In the circumstances where the record affects the interests of more than one institution, the Act expressly contemplates and allows for consultations between government institutions, including municipal institutions, before the institution with custody or control of the document makes an access decision.  This consultation is facilitated by means of a time extension (section 27 of the Act).  These provisions are available to allow an institution to consider all viewpoints so that the institution can express the government's position as a whole.

 

In this case, the Ministry received the requests on January 31, 1994.  On March 2, 1994, it issued decision letters extending the time for a response for an additional 90 days until May 31, 1994.  The time extension was claimed pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of consultations with a person outside the Ministry, which the Ministry has identified as the Ministry of the Attorney General.  In fact, the actual decision letters were issued on May 4, 1994.

 

Thus, in my view, the Ministry had the opportunity to seek the views of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the exemptions which should apply to the documents and why.

 

As far as submissions from "other appropriate parties" are concerned, I have not been provided with sufficient information to explain who these individuals or organizations might be, why I should consider seeking submissions from them and why the Ministry has not done so.  Nor have I been approached by any other government institution which has expressed the desire to make submissions in this appeal.  On this basis, there is no evidence before me to suggest why I should depart from the usual position of treating an institution's submissions as representing the government's position as a whole. 

 

Therefore, I will dispose of the issues in these appeals based on the representations of the Ministry and my own assessment as to whether the exemptions claimed by the Ministry, and any mandatory exemptions, have been established.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Prior to discussing the specific exemptions at issue in these appeals, I would like to make some general comments about the Ministry's submissions.

 

As I have previously indicated, all the parties to these appeals, including the Ministry, received a Notice of Inquiry.  This document provided the parties with a detailed synopsis of the matters at issue and the procedures to be followed.  It set out the background of these appeals, described the records at issue and referred to previous orders of the Commissioner's office dealing with similar issues.  In particular, it set out the tests which the Commissioner's office has developed to determine if institutions have satisfied the burden of proof that the exemptions they have claimed apply to the disputed records.  The Notice of Inquiry included a reference to section 53 of the Act which provides that the burden of proof that a record or part of a record falls within one of the exemptions in the Act lies upon the institution.

 

 

 

 

The representations of the Ministry in response to the Notice of Inquiry are of a very general nature.  They lack particularity in that they do not refer specifically to any of the over 500 pages of documents at issue in these appeals.  Nor is there any link or clear connection made between the application of each of the exemptions claimed and any of the records, either in whole or in part.  For those exemptions such as sections 13(1) and 14(1) of the Act which require proof that particular consequences would result from disclosure, little or no proof is provided.  In addition, no tangible evidence has been submitted with respect to those exemptions, such as section 19, which require that the record in question be prepared for a particular purpose.  Finally, in most instances, the submissions constitute nothing more than a restatement of the language of the exemptions contained in the Act. 

 

Moreover, the Ministry has claimed that all of the exemptions apply to all of the records which, given the nature of some of the documents and/or the exemptions, cannot be the case.  For example, section 19 of the Act, the common law solicitor-client privilege exemption has been claimed to apply to the six records at issue in Appeal P-9400297.  As is apparent from the records themselves, as described in Appendix "A", they were all generated by the GSSG and, with the exception of Record 2B, describe financial matters related to monies received by the GSSG.  Record 2B consists of the minutes of a GSSB board meeting.

 

Finally, pursuant to section 53 of the Act, the Ministry bears the burden of proof that the records or parts of the records fall within the exemptions claimed.  The Divisional Court has said that, in discharging its burden of proof, an institution is obliged to do more than just baldly state its position, and that sufficient information and reasoning must be provided to the Commissioner or his delegate in order that he or she may make an informed assessment.  The Divisional Court has also recognized, in a recent case dealing with the application of law enforcement exemptions, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fineberg et al. (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 197,  that reliance upon "speculative" concerns to exempt records is inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of the Act, which requires that exemptions from disclosure requirements be limited and specific.  I will refer to that case in more detail in my discussion of the law enforcement exemptions.

 

My analysis of the records at issue in these appeals will, therefore, be based on what I consider to be the rather sparse representations of the Ministry and my own review of the records as classified according to the outline in Appendix "B".

 

PERSONAL INFORMATION

 

Under section 2(1) of the Act, "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including any identifying number assigned to the individual and the individual's name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual.

 

 

In its submissions, the Ministry does not identify which portions of the records contain personal information, nor the individual or individuals to whom this information relates.

 

I have carefully reviewed the records at issue in the four appeals.  In most cases, the names of individuals appear in their employment or professional capacity either as employees of the Ministry or other government institutions or as individuals employed by external organizations. 

Many previous orders issued by the Commissioner's office have found that, where the names and identifiers of individuals appear in this context, the information does not constitute their personal information.  I agree with this approach and have adopted it for the purposes of these appeals.

 

The records do contain personal information about many members of the GSSG as well as other survivors.  In addition, there is personal information about an individual who was put forward as a candidate in a job competition, as well as another individual who was the subject of a police investigation and against whom charges were subsequently laid.

 

Some of the records contain some brief references to the appellant which constitute his personal information.

 

Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 21(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this information except in certain circumstances.

 

Sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would result in an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.  Where one of the presumptions in section 21(3) applies to the personal information found in a record, the only way such a presumption against disclosure can be overcome is if the personal information falls under section 21(4) or where a finding is made that section 23 of the Act applies to the personal information.

 

If none of the presumptions in section 21(3) apply, the institution must consider the application of the factors listed in section 21(2) of the Act, as well as all other circumstances that are relevant in the circumstances of the case.

 

The only submissions I have received in these appeals weigh in favour of privacy protection.  I am satisfied that the disclosure of the personal information of individuals other than the appellant would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of these individuals.  The personal information is, therefore, exempt pursuant to the mandatory exemption provided by section 21 of the Act.

 

I have highlighted the personal information of the job candidate and the individual who was the subject of the police investigation on portions of the following records at issue in Appeal P_9400299:  31B, 36, 39C, 65 and 67D.

 

The personal information of the Grandview survivors also appears on many of the other records at issue in all four appeals.  The Ministry must ensure that the names and other identifiers of these individuals are removed prior to disclosing the records to the appellant in accordance with the terms of this order.

 

ADVICE OR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Section 13(1) of the Act states that:

 

A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution.

 

It has been established in a number of previous orders that advice or recommendations for the purpose of section 13(1) must contain more than mere information.  To qualify as "advice" or "recommendations", the information contained in the records must relate to a suggested course of action, which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during the deliberative process.  

 

The position of the Ministry is that:

 

All documents pertaining to this appeal were created as a result of ongoing advice and recommendations from staff to senior management within the Interministerial committee created to deal with this matter.

 

All of these documents are actually suggested courses of action which were accepted and undertaken in negotiations with the Grandview Survivors Group.

 

The Ministry's submissions do not refer to any particular records as containing advice or recommendations.  Nor do they identify the suggested course of action which may be accepted or rejected by the recipient during the deliberative process.

 

Appendix "B" enumerates the records in Appeal P-9400299 which are briefing notes, or house or correspondence notes.  Several previous orders of the Commissioner's office have held that the response section of such documents may qualify for protection under section 13(1) under the category of advice or recommendations.   Many of the briefing notes at issue in this appeal do not contain a "response" section.  I find that, with respect to those records which do contain such a section, that they do not contain any information which relates to a course of action which the recipient of the document might either accept or reject as part of the policy development process in this case.  Moreover, the response sections are purely factual in nature.

Thus, none of these documents qualify for exemption pursuant to section 13(1).

 

 

 

In addition, some of the records are identified as "draft" documents.  As I stated in Order P_872, I do not believe that the section 13(1) exemption is satisfied merely because a document is labelled a draft.  In my view, the determination of the application of the exemption depends on whether it contains a suggested course of action made within the deliberative process of government.  This approach is consistent with the purpose of the Act set out in section 1(a)(ii) that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific.

 

I have carefully reviewed the balance of the records at issue in these appeals.  I find that, with the exception of six records at issue in Appeal P-9400299, the majority of these documents do not relate to a suggested course of action.  I find that only the highlighted portions of the following records satisfy the exemption in section 13(1) of the Act:  17A, 78B and 78C.

 

LAW ENFORCEMENT/RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

 

Sections 14(1)(a), (b) and (f) of the Act state:

 

A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to,

 

(a)        interfere with a law enforcement matter;

 

(b)        interfere with an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result;

 

(f)        deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication.

 

The Ministry states that the law enforcement exemptions apply to the records in their entirety "Since the OPP investigation is still open and charges may still be laid."  In effect, the Ministry appears to be suggesting that simply because an investigation is ongoing, all of the records at issue should be exempted regardless of their actual content.

 

In my view, this is essentially the same position as was taken by the Ministry of the Attorney General in the judicial review of Order P-534.  In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fineberg et al. (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 197, the Divisional Court stated, in part, at pp. 201-202:

 

The record reveals that the submissions made to the Officer by the head were of the most general sort ... and repeating the language of s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.  Clearly, sufficient information and reasoning has to be provided to the Officer in order that he or she may make an informed assessment of the reasonableness of the expectations required by s. 14.  In this case, the Ministry proceeded before the Officer as if the concerns detailed in s. 14 were self-evident from the record, or the request of such material during an active criminal investigation constituted a per se fulfilment of the relevant exemptions.  These positions are inconsistent with the purpose and scheme of the statute. [my emphasis]

 

In my view, these comments are equally applicable to the situation before me in these appeals.  The appellant has sought access to records outlining the funding provided to, and expense arrangements made, by the Ministry with the GSSG.  As was the case with the records at issue in Order P-534, it is not readily apparent how disclosure of such financial information could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or investigation, or deprive a person of a right to a fair trial.  The Ministry has provided no explanation of how disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to result in the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(a), (b) and/or (f) of the Act. 

 

Based on the Ministry's representations and my review of the records, I find that only the highlighted portions of the following records at issue in Appeal P-9400299 qualify for exemption pursuant to section 14(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act:  13B, 20A, 21, 23A, 24, 26C, 35A, 35C, 42A, 55D, 56B, 57B, 62D, 65 and 67E.  I find that none of the records at issue in any of the appeals qualify for exemption pursuant to section 14(1)(f) of the Act.

 

SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

 

Section 19 of the Act consists of two branches, which provide an institution with the discretion to refuse to disclose:

 

1.         a record that is subject to the common law solicitor-client privilege (Branch 1);  and

 

2.         a record which was prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation (Branch 2).

 

In order for a record to be subject to the common law solicitor-client privilege, the institution must provide evidence that the record satisfies either of the following tests:

 

1.         (a)        There is a written or oral communication; and

 

(b)        The communication must be of a confidential nature; and

 

(c)        The communication must be between a client (or his agent) and a legal advisor; and

 

(d)       The communication must be directly related to seeking, formulating or giving legal advice.

 

 

OR

 

2.         The record was created or obtained especially for the lawyer's brief for existing or contemplated litigation.

 

The Ministry specifically claims that the records are subject to the common law solicitor-client privilege, part 1 of Branch 1 of the test as set out above.  The Ministry does not refer to the  "litigation privilege" (part 2 of Branch 1) or Branch 2 of the exemption.  Accordingly, I will not consider litigation privilege or Branch 2 of section 19 in this order.

 

The Ministry merely states that the records constitute confidential written and oral communications between senior management and Legal Services Branch members directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice.  These submissions do not link the exemption with any of the records at issue and they essentially restate the elements of the exemption.

 

The Ministry has simply claimed that all of the records qualify for exemption pursuant to the common law solicitor-client exemption.  As I have previously indicated, there are some 500 pages of documentation at issue in these appeals.  It is not apparent from the face of these records how the exemption can apply to each and every one of the documents.  The records at issue in Appeal P-9400297 which I have described on page 4 of this order, illustrate this problem.

 

Nonetheless, I have reviewed the records at issue in the four appeals and I note that there are a relatively small number of documents that can be identified as communications between a solicitor and his or her client.  No records in Appeals P-9400294, P-9400297 or P_9400298 fall into this category.  I have identified the records in Appeal P-9400299 which in my view constitute solicitor-client communications in the record classifications in Appendix "B".  I have been provided with no evidence or information to indicate that any other records fall into this category.

 

However, not every document authored by a solicitor or sent to a solicitor by a client qualifies for exemption pursuant to the common law solicitor-client privilege.  To satisfy part 1 of Branch 1 of section 19, the record must be "directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice".  In many instances, the solicitor-client communications in Appeal P-9400299 do not satisfy this criterion; rather they are directly related to administrative or policy matters, as opposed to legal advice.

 

Having carefully reviewed the relevant records, I find that only the highlighted portions of the following records qualify for exemption pursuant to solicitor-client privilege as claimed by the Ministry:  18B, 29, 78B and 78C.

 

 

 

ECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS

 

In order to qualify for exemption under subsection 18(1)(e) of the Act, the institution must establish the following:

 

1.         the record must contain positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions; and

 

2.         the positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions must be intended to be applied to negotiations; and

 

3.         the negotiations must be carried on currently, or will be carried on in the future; and

 

4.         the negotiations must be conducted by or on behalf of the Government of Ontario or an institution.

 

[Order P-219]

 

The Ministry's representations on the application of this exemption restate the above criteria and indicate that the negotiations are between the GSSG and the Interministerial committee.  I have not been provided with any evidence to indicate what information constitutes "positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions".  Nor has the Ministry submitted any evidence to indicate that such information will be applied to negotiations which may be conducted in the future as opposed to those which have already been completed.  The Ministry merely notes that "negotiations ... continue to be in process" without distinguishing between the negotiations which have already been completed and those that it suggests are ongoing.  Thus the submissions of the Ministry have failed to establish that the first three elements of section 18(1)(e), as set out above, have been satisfied.

 

In summary, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence from the Ministry to conclude that any of the records contain the type of information the disclosure of which is protected by section 18(1)(e) of the Act.

 

PROPOSED PLANS, POLICIES OR PROJECTS OF AN INSTITUTION

 

In order to qualify for exemption under subsection 18(1)(g) of the Act, an institution must establish that a record:

 

1.         contains information including proposed plans, policies or projects; and

 

2.         that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to result in:

 

(i)         premature disclosure of a pending policy decision, or

 

(ii)        undue financial benefit or loss to a person.

 

Each element of this two part test must be satisfied.

 

[Order P-229]

 

The Ministry's submissions on the application of section 18(1)(g) are very similar to those on section 18(1)(f).  That is, they essentially restate the section of the Act.  In addition, the Ministry notes that "Disclosing these records, could reasonably be expected to have an impact on outstanding decisions on compensation packages for individual wards".

 

I have not been provided with any evidence as to which records, or portions of records, contain information which includes proposed plans, policies or projects.  The Ministry has not identified the pending policy decision which may be prematurely disclosed upon release of the records.  Nor has the Ministry submitted any evidence to indicate how disclosure of the information contained in the records could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial benefit or loss to any person.

 

Accordingly, I find that none of the records qualify for exemption pursuant to section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

 

CABINET RECORDS

 

Section 12(1) of the Act states, in part:

 

A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees, including,

 

(b)        a record containing policy options or recommendations submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees;

 

(c)        a record that does not contain policy options or recommendations referred to in clause (b) and that does contain background explanations or analyses of problems submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees for their consideration in making decisions, before those decisions are made and implemented;

 

 

 

(d)       a record used for or reflecting consultation among ministers of the Crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy;

 

It has been determined in a number of previous orders that the use of the term "including" in the introductory wording of section 12(1) means that the disclosure of any record which would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees (not just the types of records listed in the various parts of section 12(1)), qualifies for exemption under section 12(1).

 

It is also possible that a record which has never been placed before an Executive Council or its committees may qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1).  This result will occur where an institution establishes that the disclosure of the record would reveal the substance of the deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees, or that its release would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

 

As I have indicated, the Ministry has not claimed that section 12(1) applies to any of the records at issue.  However, because this exemption is mandatory, I have considered whether disclosure of any of the documents would reveal the substance of the deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees.  Based on my review of the records and the prior orders of the Commissioner's office, I find that the highlighted portions of the following records at issue in Appeal P-9400299 satisfy the Cabinet records exemption: 43, 71, 78E, 81, 101B and 102.

 

To summarize, I have found that the highlighted portions of Records 13B, 17A, 18B, 20A, 21, 23A, 24, 26C, 29, 31B, 35A, 35C, 36, 39C, 42A, 43, 55D, 56B, 57B, 62D, 65, 67D, 67E, 71, 78B, 78C, 78E, 81, 101B and 102 in Appeal P-9400299 should not be disclosed to the appellant.  Since none of this information constitutes the personal information of the appellant, I need not consider the application of sections 49(a) or (b) of the Act.

 

REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH

 

The reasonableness of the Ministry's search for records responsive to the appellant's requests is the sole issue in Appeals P-9400295 and P-9400296.

 

Where the requester provides sufficient details about the records he is seeking and the Ministry indicates that such records do not exist, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Ministry has made a reasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request.  The Act does not require the Ministry to prove with absolute certainty that the requested records do not exist.  However, in my view, to properly discharge its obligations under the Act, the Ministry must provide me with sufficient evidence to show that they have made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the request.

 

The representations of the Ministry include an affidavit sworn by the Coordinator, Organizational Development and Support Unit, for the Management Support Branch of the Ministry.  This individual indicates that, at the time that the search for responsive records was conducted, he was the Coordinator of the Community Services Unit and had custody of the Branch files on the GSSG.

 

The affidavit indicates that, during the period covered by the request, the Ministry did not make purchases on behalf of the GSSG, provide funds to individual members of the GSSG nor provide any direct funding to GSSG.  Thus, the affiant claims that "... access to the records cannot be granted because the records do not exist, nor have they ever existed".

 

As part of its representations on this issue, the Ministry has also provided an explanation of why no records exist.  The Ministry's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator states that:

 

The records do not exist, simply because this Ministry was not responsible for this area of the negotiations.  The Ministry of the Attorney General was responsible for responding to that portion of the request.

 

It is not clear to me what the Ministry means by the statement that "The Ministry of the Attorney General was responsible for responding to that portion of the request".  I have not been provided with any information to indicate that these two requests were transferred to the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Attorney General).

 

I am also uncertain as to whether it is the Ministry's position that the records do not exist  because they are now in the custody of the Attorney General or because they were both prepared by the  Attorney General and remain in its possession.  In either case, pursuant to section 25 of the Act, the Ministry should have made inquiries to determine if, in fact, the Attorney General, or any other institution, had custody or control of any responsive records and, if so, forwarded the request.

 

I am also aware that, at the same time as he submitted his requests to the Ministry, the appellant submitted very similar requests to the Ministry of the Attorney General.  However, the requests at issue in Appeals P-9400295 and P-9400296 dealt with monies paid out by the Ministry, whereas those submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General requested records on funds paid by that institution.

 

To summarize, I am not satisfied that the Ministry's processing of Appeals P-9400295 and P_9400296 followed the procedures set out in the Act.  Accordingly, I order the Ministry to follow the procedures outlined in section 25 of the Act.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER:

 

1.         I order the Ministry to disclose to the appellant all the records at issue in Appeals P_9400294, P-9400297, P-9400298 and P-9400299 with the exception of the portions of Records 13B, 17A, 18B, 20A, 21, 23A, 24, 26C, 29, 31B, 35A, 35C, 36, 39C, 42A, 43, 55D, 56B, 57B, 62D, 65, 67D, 67E, 71, 78B, 78C, 78E, 81, 101B, and 102 in Appeal P-9400299 which I have highlighted on those copies of these records sent to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator of the Ministry with a copy of this order.

 

2.         I further order the Ministry to review those portions of the records which I have directed to be disclosed to identify the names and any other information which would serve to identify the Grandview survivors.  I order that the Ministry delete this identifying information from the records in question before they are released to the appellant.

 

3.         I order the Ministry to disclose the records in Provision 1 to the appellant within thirty-five (35) days of the date of this order and not earlier than the thirtieth (30th) day after the date of this order.

 

4.         In order to verify compliance with the provisions of this order, I reserve the right to require that the Ministry  provide me with a copy of the records which are disclosed to the appellant pursuant to Provision 1.

 

5.         I order the Ministry, within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this order, to make all necessary inquiries to determine whether another institution, and in particular, the Ministry of the Attorney General, has custody or control of any records which are responsive to the requests that formed the subject of Appeals P-9400295 and P-9400296 and advise the appellant of the results of these inquiries.

 

6.         In the event that the Ministry determines that another institution has custody or control of any responsive records,  I order the Ministry to transfer the requests that formed the subject of Appeals P-9400295 and P-9400296 to that institution within twenty-one (21) days of the receipt of this order.

 

7.         I order the Ministry to provide me with a copy of the letter to the appellant described in Provision 5 and the transfer letter described in Provision 6 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.  They should be sent to my attention c/o Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, 80 Bloor Street West, Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2V1.

 

 

Original signed by:                                                                      April 10, 1995                

Anita Fineberg

Inquiry Officer

APPENDIX "A"

 

Abbreviations:

 

GSSG = Grandview Survivors Support Group

FSO = Family Services Ontario

FSBSW = Family Services Bureau of South Waterloo

OWD = Ontario Women's Directorate

G I-M = Grandview Interministerial

 

 

APPEAL P-9400294

Ministry Request Number 25-0014-94

 

ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF SECTIONS

13(1); 14(1)(a), (b) and (f); 18(1)(e) and (g); 19 and 21

 

 

APPEALS P-9400297 and P-9400298

Ministry Request Numbers 25-0010-94 and 25-0008-94 respectively

 

ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF SECTIONS

13(1); 14(1)(a), (b) and (f); 18(1)(e) and (g); 19 and 21

 

 

 

APPEAL P-9400299

Ministry Request Number 25-0009-94

 

ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF SECTIONS

13(1); 14(1)(a), (b) and (f); 18(1)(e) and (g); 19 and 21

 

 

APPENDIX "B"

 

RECORD CLASSIFICATIONS

 

 

APPEAL P-9400294

 

Agreements with groups to provide   services: 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4C, 5, 6D, 10A, 12B, 12F, 12G, 13B

 

Handwritten notes:                                                  4B

 

Internal Ministry Communications:

 

       (1)   With respect to funding:                           9A, 11, 12A, 12E, 14

 

       (2)   concerning the agreements:                      12C, 12D

 

       (3)   Concerning staffing issues:                       13C

 

       (4)   Regarding the crisis line:                           16B

 

       (5)   Regarding the roles and

               responsibilities of GSSG:                          16C

 

       (6)   Regarding counselling services:                16D

 

Ministry communications with outside agencies:    6A, 6C, 7A, 8, 9B, 13A, 15A, 16A

 

Invoices from outside agencies:                              6B, 7B, 15B

 

 

APPEAL P-9400299

 

Ministry Correspondence/Communications with:

 

       (1)   Outside Agencies:                                     6A, 15C, 18C, 23D, 49C, 49F, 66, 68C, 72C, 72E, 80C, 80D, 82B, 82D

 

       (2)   Individuals:                                              6B (MPP)

 

       (3)   Ministry of the Attorney General:             7A, 10B, 15B, 23B, 31B, 36, 39C, 60A, 84A

 

       (4)   Ministry of the Solicitor General

                      and Correctional Services:                 95B

 

       (5)   Ontario Women's Directorate:                  55C, 56A, 57A, 62C, 62D

 

 

 

Internal Ministry Communications with Respect to:

 

       (1)   Funding:                                                   6C, 11A, 11C, 11D, 12, 13A, 13C, 17A, 17B, 18B, 20B, 22C, 29, 43, 48, 49A, 49E, 50, 51A, 51B, 55B, 60E, 72B, 72D, 78B, 80B, 108D, 108C

 

       (2)   Legal Branch:                                           6D, 10A, 14A, 17B, 18D, 18E, 18G, 18H, 19A, 19B, 22B, 33, 78C, 101B

 

       (3)   Counselling of survivors:                         7B, 18F, 38, 85, 99, 103A, 103B, 105A, 105B, 108F

 

       (4)   Concerns of the police:                            13B, 20A

 

       (5)   Family Services Bureau:                           14B, 31C, 64B

 

       (6)   Child care:                                                82A

 

       (7)   The survivors generally:                           45, 46E, 46F, 49D, 55A, 57B, 58, 64A, 67B, 80A, 94, 96A, 107A

 

Ministry Agreement with FSO:                                56D

 

Internal FSO Communications:                               7C

 

GSSG Documents:                                                  8A, 8B, 8C, 9B, 9C, 25B, 25C, 26D, 63B, 84B, 84C, 89, 103C

 

Ministry of the Attorney General Communications:

 

       (1)   With other ministries:                               9A, 11B

 

       (2)   Internal communications:                         28B, 28C, 30C, 30D, 40B, 47C

 

       3)    With counsel to the GSSG:                       26B, 26C, 39A, 39B

 

OWD Communications:

 

       (1)   With GSSG counsel:                                 59C

 

       (2)   Internal communications:                         30A

 

Briefing Notes:                                                        11D, 15A, 18A, 19C, 40D, 60F, 78D, 82C (correspondence note), 91, 92 (house note), 95A, 96B, 101C, 108C

Handwritten notes:                                                  16, 21, 22A, 22C, 40C, 42A, 46D, 51D, 53B, 53J, 56C, 57C, 59B, 60C, 63A, 67D, 69, 70, 72A, 74B, 76A, 77, 81, 87A, 97, 98, 106, 107B, 108B

 

Interministerial Working Group and

       Subcommittee Documents:                              23A, 23C, 24, 25A, 26A, 27, 28A, 30B, 31A, 34, 35A, 35B, 40A, 41A, 41B, 42B, 46A, 46B, 46C, 47A, 47B, 49B, 51C, 51E, 52, 53A, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F, 53G, 53H, 53I, 54A, 54B, 54C, 57D, 59A, 60B, 60D, 61, 62A, 62B, 62E, 67A, 67C, 68A, 68B, 71, 74A, 76B, 76C, 76D, 76E, 78A, 79, 90A, 90B, 95C, 101A, 102, 104, 105C, 108

 

Counselling consultations:                                                                   65, 67E