Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (theMinistry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protectionof Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to copies ofwitness statements taken by the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) following aspecified motor vehicle accident in September 1996. The requester is theinsurance adjuster for the owner of one of the vehicles involved in theaccident. The Ministry identified six witness statements totalling eight pagesas responsive to the request and denied access to them, claiming the applicationof the following exemptions contained in the Act : law enforcement - section 14(2)(a) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry's decision. ANotice of Inquiry was provided by this office to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were submitted by both parties. The appellant advised that heno longer sought access to the identities of the individuals who made thestatements to the OPP. The Ministry advised that it was no longer relying onthe law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a). DISCUSSION: PERSONAL INFORMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" isdefined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual,including the individual's name where it appears with other personal informationrelating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would revealother personal information about the individual. I have reviewed the records to determine if they contain personalinformation and, if so, to whom the information relates. I find that theydescribe the activities of these individuals at the time of the accident, thevehicles they were driving and their destinations. In my view, because thisinformation is so intimately related to the witnesses, I find that it qualifiesas their personal information. I further find that, even with the namesremoved, the information pertains to an identifiable individual, within themeaning of section 2(1). None of the records contain the personal informationof the appellant. Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information,section 21(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this informationexcept in certain circumstances. One of these exceptions is found in section21(1)(f) which permits disclosure if it "does not constitute an unjustifiedinvasion of personal privacy". Sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance indetermining whether disclosure of personal information would result in anunjustified invasion of personal privacy. Where one of the presumptions insection 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 personalinformation falls under section 21(4) or where a finding is made that section 23of the Act applies to the personal information. If none of the presumptions in section 21(3) apply, the Ministry mustconsider 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 thecase. The Ministry claims that the information contained in the records fallswithin the ambit of the presumption in section 21(3)(b), which reads: A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute anunjustified invasion of personal privacy where the personal information, was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into apossible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary toprosecute the violation of to continue the investigation; The appellant submits that the criminal proceedings which resulted from theaccident are now complete and that his principals require the records tocontinue their investigation of the matter in the civil courts. I find that thepursuit of an investigation in furtherance of a civil action is not, however,the type of investigation which is contemplated by the wording in the latterpart of section 21(3)(b). The appellant also submits that a number of factorslisted in section 21(2) which favour the disclosure of the information containedin the records are also present. I find that the records were compiled by the OPP in the course of its lawenforcement investigation of a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, the section21(3)(b) presumption applies to the information in the records. In my view, thefact that the criminal proceedings which were initiated as a result of theaccident have now been completed does not negate the applicability of thepresumption. As previously noted, the only way in which a presumption under section 21(3)of the Act may be rebutted is where the information falls within section21(4) of the Act or where the public interest override in section 23 isfound to apply. In this case, the information at issue does not fall withinsection 21(4) of the Act and the appellant has not raised the possibleapplication of section 23. Because the presumption in section 21(3)(b) has not been rebutted, I findthat the disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion ofthe personal privacy of the witnesses who provided the statements, under section21(1). They are, therefore, exempt from disclosure. ORDER: I uphold the Ministry's decision. Original signed by: Donald Hale, Inquiry Officer October 22, 1997
Decision Content
ORDER P-1470
Appeal P_9700246
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The request was for access to copies of witness statements taken by the Ontario Provincial Police (the OPP) following a specified motor vehicle accident in September 1996. The requester is the insurance adjuster for the owner of one of the vehicles involved in the accident. The Ministry identified six witness statements totalling eight pages as responsive to the request and denied access to them, claiming the application of the following exemptions contained in the Act:
∙ law enforcement - section 14(2)(a)
∙ invasion of privacy - section 21(1)
The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry’s decision. A Notice of Inquiry was provided by this office to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were submitted by both parties. The appellant advised that he no longer sought access to the identities of the individuals who made the statements to the OPP. The Ministry advised that it was no longer relying on the law enforcement exemption in section 14(2)(a).
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY
Under section 2(1) of the Act, "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual, including 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.
I have reviewed the records to determine if they contain personal information and, if so, to whom the information relates. I find that they describe the activities of these individuals at the time of the accident, the vehicles they were driving and their destinations. In my view, because this information is so intimately related to the witnesses, I find that it qualifies as their personal information. I further find that, even with the names removed, the information pertains to an identifiable individual, within the meaning of section 2(1). None of the records contain the personal information of the appellant.
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. One of these exceptions is found in section 21(1)(f) which permits disclosure if it “does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy”.
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 Ministry 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 Ministry claims that the information contained in the records falls within the ambit of the presumption in section 21(3)(b), which reads:
A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy where the personal information,
was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation of to continue the investigation;
The appellant submits that the criminal proceedings which resulted from the accident are now complete and that his principals require the records to continue their investigation of the matter in the civil courts. I find that the pursuit of an investigation in furtherance of a civil action is not, however, the type of investigation which is contemplated by the wording in the latter part of section 21(3)(b). The appellant also submits that a number of factors listed in section 21(2) which favour the disclosure of the information contained in the records are also present.
I find that the records were compiled by the OPP in the course of its law enforcement investigation of a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, the section 21(3)(b) presumption applies to the information in the records. In my view, the fact that the criminal proceedings which were initiated as a result of the accident have now been completed does not negate the applicability of the presumption.
As previously noted, the only way in which a presumption under section 21(3) of the Act may be rebutted is where the information falls within section 21(4) of the Act or where the public interest override in section 23 is found to apply. In this case, the information at issue does not fall within section 21(4) of the Act and the appellant has not raised the possible application of section 23.
Because the presumption in section 21(3)(b) has not been rebutted, I find that the disclosure of the records would constitute an unjustified invasion of the personal privacy of the witnesses who provided the statements, under section 21(1). They are, therefore, exempt from disclosure.
ORDER:
I uphold the Ministry’s decision.
Original signed by: October 22, 1997
Donald Hale
Inquiry Officer