Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The requester submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) for access to: copies of all documents, notes memorandums, etc. which are or have been in possession of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in relation to the Equity 2000 plan and recommendations, of the Ontario College of Art, also known as the Ontario College of Art and Design from its outset to present Because the OHRC exceeded the time limit for issuing a decision, the requester filed a "deemed refusal" appeal and this office opened Appeal Number PA-010203-1. During the course of that appeal, the OHRC issued a decision letter advising the requester that following a search of its record-holdings, no records responsive to the request were found. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the OHRC's decision on the basis that records ought to exist and this office opened Appeal Number PA-010203-2. Acting Adjudicator Susan Ostapec addressed the issues in that appeal in Order PO-1968 on November 15, 2001. In that decision, she ordered the OHRC to conduct additional searches and to provide the appellant with the details and the results of its searches by December 15, 2001. In the event that records were located as a result of the additional searches, the OHRC was ordered to issue a final decision on access to such records by December 15, 2001. The OHRC provided the appellant with two letters dated December 18, 2001, the first pertaining to the nature and extent of the searches that were conducted and the second a decision letter with respect to those records that were located as a result of those searches. The OHRC advised the appellant that access would be granted to 78 pages of records upon payment of a fee of $15.60 and that it was prepared to conduct additional searches for the minutes of Commission meetings from the period of 1988 to 1992 upon payment of a fee estimated at $1,099.80. The appellant appealed the OHRC's decision with respect to that fee estimate and also took issue with the OHRC's response to the order provisions in Order PO-1968. As a result, this office opened Appeal Number PA-010203-3. I adjudicated upon the issues raised in the appeal and issued Order PO-2067 on November 13, 2002. In Order PO-2067, I ordered the OHRC to conduct additional searches for the minutes of Commission Meetings held between November 1989 and June 1990 and to issue a final decision on access in the event that additional responsive records were located. I upheld the OHRC's searches for other responsive records but did not uphold its decision to charge the fees described above. In response to Order PO-2067, the OHRC issued a decision letter advising the appellant that it had located Commission Meeting Minutes for March 19-20, 1990 and April 18-19, 1990. The OHRC granted partial access to these records. Portions of these records were not disclosed as the OHRC claimed them to be exempt under the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Act . The appellant was also advised that a thorough search of all available records relating to Commission Meeting and Panel Meeting Minutes for the years 1987 to 1997 was conducted but that Commission Meeting Minutes for the June 1990 Commission Meeting were not located. The OHRC also informed the appellant that Commission Meeting Minutes for November and December 1989 and January, February and May 1990 did not reveal any reference whatsoever to the Ontario College of Art's application for a special program. In addition, the OHRC granted partial access to certain other records identified in its December 18, 2001 decision letter. Again, certain information in these records was withheld pursuant to the invasion of privacy exemption in section 21(1). The appellant appealed the OHRC's decision made in response to the order provisions in Order PO-2067 and this office opened Appeal Number PA-010203-4. During the course of mediation and after obtaining the appellant's consent, the mediator provided the OHRC with a copy of the appeal letter filed with this office by the appellant. The appellant clarified that he takes issue with the OHRC's decision in response to Order PO-2067 as he is of the view that the OHRC did not address all the responsive records. The appellant takes issue with the fact that the OHRC's decision in response to Order PO-2067 made no mention of Commission Minutes resulting from meetings held during the months of November and December 1989 and January and February 1990; nor is there any discussion of searches conducted for such records. As well, the appellant submits that searches for May 1990 Commission Meeting Minutes were not addressed in the OHRC's decision and searches of the Chief Commissioner's minutes were not undertaken. Specifically, the appellant is of the view that additional records exist with respect to Commission Meeting Minutes for the months of November and December 1989, as well as January, February, May and June 1990. The appellant also advised the mediator that he is seeking access to the names and titles of the members of the Commission included in the March and April 1990 Commission Meeting Minutes. The appellant would also like to have the full names and positions of any other persons involved as Members or Staff at the meeting of March 20, 1990. The details of this aspect of his appeal are contained in a letter dated July 18, 2003 from the appellant to the OHRC. Finally, the appellant advised the mediator that he takes issue with the severances made to the March and April 1990 Commission Meeting Minutes but not to those made to the records disclosed pursuant to the December 18, 2001 decision letter. As further mediation was not possible, the appeal was moved to the adjudication stage of the process. I decided to seek the representations of the OHRC initially. The OHRC submitted representations, which were shared with the appellant, along with a copy of the Notice of Inquiry. The appellant also made representations, which were then shared with the OHRC. The OHRC provided me with additional representations by way of reply. During the Inquiry stage of the appeal process, the OHRC provided the appellant with the names of the Commission members and staff who participated in the Commission meetings of March 19-20, 1990 and April 18-19, 1990. This information is, therefore, no longer at issue in the appeal and I need not address the possible application of section 21(1) to it. DISCUSSION: REASONABLE SEARCH General principles The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the OHRC has conducted a reasonable search for the records as required by section 24 of the Act . If I am satisfied that the search carried out was reasonable in the circumstances, the decision of the OHRC will be upheld. If I am not satisfied, further searches may be ordered. Where a requester provides sufficient detail about the records which he is seeking and an institution indicates that records do not exist, it is my responsibility to ensure that the institution, in this case the OHRC, has made a reasonable search to identify any records that are responsive to the request. The Act does not require institutions to prove with absolute certainty that responsive records do not exist. However, in this case, in order to properly discharge
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The requester submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) for access to:
copies of all documents, notes memorandums, etc. which are or have been in possession of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in relation to the Equity 2000 plan and recommendations, of the Ontario College of Art, also known as the Ontario College of Art and Design from its outset to present