Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) – Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the OCL) for access to records concerning himself, his former spouse and their children. The Ministry located 57 pages of responsive records, and granted access to 39 of them. The Ministry withheld the remaining 18 pages on the basis of the exemption at section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) in conjunction with sections 13 (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). The Ministry also refused access to these records on the basis of section 49(b) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) in conjunction with section 21 (unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy). The appellant appealed the refusal.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The appellant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) – Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the OCL) for access to records concerning himself, his former spouse and their children.
The Ministry located 57 pages of responsive records, and granted access to 39 of them. The Ministry withheld the remaining 18 pages on the basis of the exemption at section 49(a) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) in conjunction with sections 13 (advice or recommendations) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). The Ministry also refused access to these records on the basis of section 49(b) (discretion to refuse requester’s own information) in conjunction with section 21 (unjustified invasion of another individual’s personal privacy).
The appellant appealed the refusal.
During mediation, the appellant raised the possible application of the exception under section 21(1)(d) (authorized disclosure under another Act) in conjunction with the Children’s Law Reform Act. The issues were not resolved by mediation and the matter subsequently moved to adjudication.
I received representations from the Ministry. The Ministry’s representations indicated that portions of some of the records at issue could be severed and disclosed to the appellant so long as the author of the record, the affected person who is the appellant’s former spouse, was first provided with an opportunity to make representations about whether or not that information should be disclosed.