The appellant appealed the Police’s decision.  In his appeal letter, the appellant included detailed submissions in support of his position.

No issues could be resolved during mediation, and the appeal was referred to me for inquiry. 

I first sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant.  The appellant submitted representations.  I then sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police together with a copy of the appellant’s representations in their entirety.  The Police chose not to submit representations.

In conducting my inquiry I have considered all of the evidence before me including

•         the Police’s decision letter

•         the appellant’s appeal letter

•         the appellant’s representations

•         the record at issue

RECORD:

The information that the appellant has asked to be corrected is a portion of a paragraph in a document identified as “Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service - Follow Up Investigation” report.

CONCLUSION:

The appellant’s correction request is not warranted.

DISCUSSION:

DOES THE RECORD CONTAIN THE APPELLANT’S PERSONAL INFORMATION?

Sections 36(2)(a) and (b) of the Act provide for correction requests and statements of disagreement relating to one’s own personal information.  These sections state:

Every individual who is given access under subsection (1) to personal information is entitled to,

(a)        request correction of the personal information where the individual believes there is an error or omission therein;

(b)        require that a statement of disagreement be attached to the information reflecting any correction that was requested but not made . . .

Section 2(1) of the Act provides, in part, that “personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including the views or opinions of another individual about the individual (g) and the individual’s name if 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 (h). 

In this case, I find that the portion of the record that the appellant wants corrected contains his personal information.  It is recorded information about the appellant, including the appellant’s name and the first three digits of his postal code and a statement from the postal inspector, recorded by a Police officer.

SHOULD THE PERSONAL INFORMATION BE CORRECTED?

An early order of this office set out the three requirements necessary for granting a request for correction, all of which must apply in the circumstances.

1.         The information at issue must be personal and private information.

2.         The information must be inexact, incomplete or ambiguous.

3.         The correction cannot be a substitution of opinion.

(See Order 186)

As noted above, I am satisfied that the records contain the appellant’s personal information; therefore, requirement 1 is met.

Requirement 2 refers to the information being “inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous”. 

The appellant has gone to considerable effort in his representations to establish that the information at issue is incorrect.  He has provided extensive documentary evidence in support of his position that he submitted complaints to Canada Post regarding concerns that his mail was being stolen.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Police acted reasonably in refusing the correction request.  The appellant is at liberty, under 36(2)(b) of the Act, to require the Police to attach to the information a statement of disagreement, reflecting the correction that he requested.

ORDER:

I uphold the decision of the Police to deny the appellant’s correction request.

Original signed by:                                                                        May 29, 2003                      

Bernard Morrow