Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the following: all information about [the requester] from victim/witness including the notes of [a named staff person]; all information about [the requester] including notes of [a named counsel with victim/witness]; all information from the office of the Crown Attorney in the matter of R. vs. [a named individual]. This matter was heard at College Park Court House during June 2001. The requester sought access to those records maintained by the Victim/Witness Assistance Program (the VWAP) involving himself and a named accused person. The Ministry located responsive records and denied access to them pursuant to the following exemptions contained in the Act: Solicitor-client privilege - section 19; Danger to safety or health - section 20; Invasion of privacy - sections 21(1) and 49(b); and Discretion to refuse requester's own information - section 49(a). In its decision, the Ministry advised the appellant to make a request to the Toronto Police Service for the information sought from the Office of the Crown Attorney. The appellant submitted a separate request to the Toronto Police Service for access to this information. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry's decision. During the mediation of the appeal, the Ministry provided the appellant with an index of records containing a description of the records at issue in this appeal and the exemptions relied on to deny access. The Ministry also clarified that some of the records contain information which is not relevant to the request. At the request of the appellant, the issue of responsiveness of all of the information contained in the records has been added as an issue in dispute in this appeal. The appellant advised the mediator that he is of the view that additional records exist including, but not limited to, a victim impact statement, a statement provided to the Crown Attorney, and communications between himself and counsel at the VWAP. Accordingly, the issue of reasonableness of search remains outstanding as well. Further mediation was not possible and the matter was referred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I decided to seek the representations of the Ministry, initially, as it bears the onus of establishing the application of the exemptions claimed for the records at issue. The Ministry made its submissions, the non-confidential portions of which were shared with the appellant, along with a copy of the Notice of Inquiry. The appellant also submitted representations in response to the Notice. RECORDS: There are eleven pages of records at issue in this appeal. Records 1 to 7 consist of hand written notes taken by counsel to the VWAP. Records 8 to 11 consist of VWAP client contact records compiled by the Coordinator of the VWAP's College Park office. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Do Counsel's Notes Contain Information Which is Not Responsive to the Request? The Ministry takes the position that certain portions of Records 1 to 7 contain information which is unrelated to the appellant's case. It submits that Records 1 to 7 are handwritten notes taken by VWAP counsel which are recorded in her daily notebook. The Ministry indicates that much of what is recorded on these pages relates to other matters with which counsel was involved at the time of her dealings with the matter concerning the appellant. As a result, she took notes relating to the appellant's case and a number of other files in which she was engaged at that time. Based on my review of the contents of Records 1 to 7, I find that only certain discrete portions of them relate to the appellant and his involvement with the VWAP's College Park office. The remaining information relates to other matters in which counsel was involved on or around the same dates. Accordingly, I have no difficulty in finding that the majority of the information contained in Records 1 to 7 is not responsive to the appellant's request as it does not relate to the appellant's case with the VWAP office. Rather, the matters reflected in these notes are concerned with other individuals and other incidents not involving the appellant. I find specifically that only the information at the top of Record 1, the bottom of Record 3, the top line and bottom half of Record 4, all of Record 5 except the middle portion, all of Record 6 and two excerpts from Record 7 contain information which is responsive to the appellant's request. DISCUSSION: REASONABLENESS OF SEARCH At the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant indicated that he is also seeking access to a victim impact statement and witness statement which he provided to the Crown Attorney and to records of communications between himself and counsel to the VWAP. In response, the Ministry submits that the request as originally framed was limited to records maintained by the Coordinator and counsel of the VWAP's College Park office. In responding to the request, searches were conducted of the files located at that office and the notes of VWAP counsel reflecting her communications with and about the appellant. Records 8 to 11 in this appeal represent the entire contents of the VWAP file relating to the appellant and Records 1 to 7 are the notes taken by counsel. The Ministry submits that these are the only responsive documents in its custody or control which are responsive to the request. It indicates that the victim impact statement and witness statement provided to the Crown Attorney are included in the Crown brief which was returned to the investigating police service, in this case the Toronto Police, at the conclusion of the criminal trial. The Ministry notes that it directed the appellant to file another request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Toronto Police Service for access to these records and that he has done so. Based on the submissions of the Ministry and my review of the records, I am satisfied that the searches conducted for records responsive to the request were reasonable and that all of the records maintained by the VWAP regarding its involvement with the appellant have been identified and constitute the records at issue in this appeal. As a result, I dismiss this part of the appeal. PERSONAL INFORMATION The section 49(b) personal privacy exemption applies only to information which qualifies as "personal information", as defined in 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 [paragraph (c)] 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 [paragraph (h)]. The Ministry submits that the records contain the personal information of both the appellant and another identifiable individual, including information as to this person's race, age, sex and ethnic origin (par
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the following:
all information about [the requester] from victim/witness including the notes of [a named staff person];
all information about [the requester] including notes of [a named counsel with victim/witness];
all information from the office of the Crown Attorney in the matter of R. vs. [a named individual]. This matter was heard at College Park Court House during June 2001.