Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• Information relating to a named property
• Reasonable Search – section 17 – appeal dismissed
• Whether the request was frivolous or vexatious – sections 4(1)(b), and 5.1 of Regulation 823 – upheld
• Reasonable search appeal dismissed. Decision of the Police that the request was frivolous or vexatious upheld
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEALS:
BACKGROUND
The First Request
The Corporation of the City of Brantford (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records, containing the following information:
(1)Where did the OW Case Worker [an affected person] get the names of the [an affected company] and [an affected company]? (In her correspondence to me, dated February 2003, she specifically gave me the names of the 2 storage sites where my mother, [an affected person’s] furniture and personal belongings are stored…)
The question is where did she get the names and locations of those two storage sites?
…
(2)Where did [an affected person] get Permission from the Bank from? She stated on or about July 2002, that we should be living in that house and we didn’t get, Permission from the bank where did she get Permission from? From Whom?
In response, the City refused to process the request for access to the records on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious as contemplated by section 4(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 823 made under the Act.