Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the Municipality) received arequest under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to a copy of a letter sent to the Municipality'sSocial Services Division by the requester's landlord in June 1996. TheMunicipality conducted a search for the requested document and advised therequester that it could not locate it. The requester (now the appellant)appealed the Municipality's decision. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the parties by this office soliciting theirsubmissions on the issue of whether the search undertaken by the Municipalityfor the responsive record was reasonable. Representations were received fromthe Municipality. The appellant provided some additional information supportingher contention that the record exists. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH The Municipality acknowledges that the requested letter was received by itsScarborough West Social Services Office by fax on June 24, 1996. As part of itsrepresentations, the Municipality included an affidavit from the Access andPrivacy Co-ordinator for its Community Services Department in which shedescribes the searches undertaken to locate the requested letter. Searches wereundertaken on several occasions of the appellant's case file, the office of theManager of Corporate Access and Privacy, the facsimile room where thecommunication was received, the appellant's caseworker's desk and other currentcase files, as well as other files maintained by the caseworker and hersupervisor. These searches were unsuccessful in locating the document which isthe subject of this request. Where a requester provides sufficient details about the records which she isseeking, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Municipality has made areasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. The Act does not require the Municipality to prove with absolutecertainty that the requested records do not exist. However, in order toproperly discharge its obligations under the Act , the Municipality mustprovide me with sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the appellant's request. I have carefully reviewed the representations of the parties together withthe affidavit provided by the Municipality. I am satisfied that theMunicipality has taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested record. ORDER: I dismiss the appeal. Original signed by: Donald Hale, Inquiry Officer November 29, 1996
Decision Content
ORDER M-868
Appeal M_9600265
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the Municipality) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The request was for access to a copy of a letter sent to the Municipality’s Social Services Division by the requester’s landlord in June 1996. The Municipality conducted a search for the requested document and advised the requester that it could not locate it. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Municipality’s decision.
A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the parties by this office soliciting their submissions on the issue of whether the search undertaken by the Municipality for the responsive record was reasonable. Representations were received from the Municipality. The appellant provided some additional information supporting her contention that the record exists.
DISCUSSION:
REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH
The Municipality acknowledges that the requested letter was received by its Scarborough West Social Services Office by fax on June 24, 1996. As part of its representations, the Municipality included an affidavit from the Access and Privacy Co-ordinator for its Community Services Department in which she describes the searches undertaken to locate the requested letter. Searches were undertaken on several occasions of the appellant’s case file, the office of the Manager of Corporate Access and Privacy, the facsimile room where the communication was received, the appellant’s caseworker’s desk and other current case files, as well as other files maintained by the caseworker and her supervisor. These searches were unsuccessful in locating the document which is the subject of this request.
Where a requester provides sufficient details about the records which she is seeking, it is my responsibility to ensure that the Municipality has made a reasonable search to identify any records which are responsive to the request. The Act does not require the Municipality to prove with absolute certainty that the requested records do not exist. However, in order to properly discharge its obligations under the Act, the Municipality must provide me with sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate records responsive to the appellant’s request.
I have carefully reviewed the representations of the parties together with the affidavit provided by the Municipality. I am satisfied that the Municipality has taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested record.
ORDER:
I dismiss the appeal.
Original signed by: November 29, 1996
Donald Hale
Inquiry Officer