Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Ottawa (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to a copy of a letter sent by "a Councillor at the Region of Ottawa" to a named police officer with the Ottawa Police Services Board (the Police). The City transferred the request to the Police pursuant to section 18(2) of the Act as the Police appeared to have custody or control of the record sought. The Police advised the requester that it no longer has a copy of the record as it was destroyed in accordance with its records retention policy. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Police decision on the basis that the Police should have disclosed this record in response to an earlier request made in 1999. The appellant is of the view that the records which he is seeking ought not to have been destroyed and should still exist in the record-holdings of the Police. I provided a Notice of Inquiry to the Police and the appellant seeking their representations on the issue of whether the search undertaken by the Police for the responsive record was reasonable. I received submissions from the Police but did not receive any response from the appellant. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH In support of his position that the requested record should exist, the appellant provided this office with a copy of an extract from a document which he received from the Ottawa-Carleton Children's Aid Society. This extract, dated February 24, 1999 makes reference to a letter received by an individual employed by the Police from a Councillor with the Region of Ottawa-Carleton. The Police submit that, in accordance with the provisions of its records retention bylaw: all correspondence to any member of our service from a Councillor would have been kept on file for a two year period following the guidelines of the Retention Policy which is our by-law for our Records Retention. With respect to the searches undertaken for the responsive record, the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator for the Police submitted that: The search for the documents was done by the Police Chief's secretary with negative results. The search was also done by [the recipient of the letter] with negative results. I even contacted the Police Services Board Executive Assistant [a named individual] and her search was also negative. I have enclosed copies of their emails to confirm that they were unable to locate copies of this letter. Our Records Management System was checked by myself with negative results. With respect to the possible whereabouts of the requested letter, the Police submit that: It is possible and likely that the letter did exist at one time. Because our Records Retention policy governs our records and correspondence, we would have been obliged to abide by the terms of the Policy to destroy correspondence after a two year period. In some instances if a Criminal Investigation is done and charges are laid the original letter or a copy thereof may be kept on the file for court purposes. This was not the case in this instance. Because I could not determine the date the letter was written and sent to our attention, I cannot assume when the letter would have been destroyed. According to our Records Section, there was a report which was made by a councillor in March of 1999. This report does not have a copy of any letter attached. Based on the submissions of the Police, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the appellant to demonstrate the continued existence of the requested document, I find that the searches undertaken for the responsive record were reasonable in the circumstances. In my view, the Police have sufficiently demonstrated that they have searched in all of the locations where the record might reasonably be likely to have been filed and were not successful in locating the requested letter. As stated by the Police, it is likely that a copy of the record once existed but that it has been destroyed in accordance with the provisions of its records retention policy. This policy provides that material such as the letter in question, which was not related to any specific criminal investigation, is normally destroyed after a two-year period. The record would have been created prior to February 24, 1999, as it is referred to in the CAS notes made on that date. It would likely have been destroyed prior to the date of the request, November 23, 2001, in accordance with the Police records retention policy. ORDER: I find that the search undertaken by the Police for the responsive record was reasonable and I dismiss the appeal. Original signed by: Donald Hale Adjudicator July 19, 2002
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The City of Ottawa (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to a copy of a letter sent by “a Councillor at the Region of Ottawa” to a named police officer with the Ottawa Police Services Board (the Police). The City transferred the request to the Police pursuant to section 18(2) of the Act as the Police appeared to have custody or control of the record sought.
The Police advised the requester that it no longer has a copy of the record as it was destroyed in accordance with its records retention policy. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Police decision on the basis that the Police should have disclosed this record in response to an earlier request made in 1999. The appellant is of the view that the records which he is seeking ought not to have been destroyed and should still exist in the record-holdings of the Police.
I provided a Notice of Inquiry to the Police and the appellant seeking their representations on the issue of whether the search undertaken by the Police for the responsive record was reasonable. I received submissions from the Police but did not receive any response from the appellant.
DISCUSSION:
REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH
In support of his position that the requested record should exist, the appellant provided this office with a copy of an extract from a document which he received from the Ottawa-Carleton Children’s Aid Society. This extract, dated February 24, 1999 makes reference to a letter received by an individual employed by the Police from a Councillor with the Region of Ottawa-Carleton.
The Police submit that, in accordance with the provisions of its records retention bylaw:
all correspondence to any member of our service from a Councillor would have been kept on file for a two year period following the guidelines of the Retention Policy which is our by-law for our Records Retention.
With respect to the searches undertaken for the responsive record, the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator for the Police submitted that:
The search for the documents was done by the Police Chief’s secretary with negative results. The search was also done by [the recipient of the letter] with negative results. I even contacted the Police Services Board Executive Assistant [a named individual] and her search was also negative. I have enclosed copies of their emails to confirm that they were unable to locate copies of this letter. Our Records Management System was checked by myself with negative results.
With respect to the possible whereabouts of the requested letter, the Police submit that:
It is possible and likely that the letter did exist at one time. Because our Records Retention policy governs our records and correspondence, we would have been obliged to abide by the terms of the Policy to destroy correspondence after a two year period. In some instances if a Criminal Investigation is done and charges are laid the original letter or a copy thereof may be kept on the file for court purposes. This was not the case in this instance. Because I could not determine the date the letter was written and sent to our attention, I cannot assume when the letter would have been destroyed. According to our Records Section, there was a report which was made by a councillor in March of 1999. This report does not have a copy of any letter attached.
Based on the submissions of the Police, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the appellant to demonstrate the continued existence of the requested document, I find that the searches undertaken for the responsive record were reasonable in the circumstances. In my view, the Police have sufficiently demonstrated that they have searched in all of the locations where the record might reasonably be likely to have been filed and were not successful in locating the requested letter.
As stated by the Police, it is likely that a copy of the record once existed but that it has been destroyed in accordance with the provisions of its records retention policy. This policy provides that material such as the letter in question, which was not related to any specific criminal investigation, is normally destroyed after a two-year period. The record would have been created prior to February 24, 1999, as it is referred to in the CAS notes made on that date. It would likely have been destroyed prior to the date of the request, November 23, 2001, in accordance with the Police records retention policy.
ORDER:
I find that the search undertaken by the Police for the responsive record was reasonable and I dismiss the appeal.
Original Signed By: July 19, 2002