Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC) is an agency of the Ontario Government that operates province-wide lottery games, charity and aboriginal casinos, slots facilities at racetracks, and commercial casinos. Like other operators of casinos, the OLGC employs security measures to ensure the integrity of the gaming, the safety of patrons and the protection of assets. These security measures include the use of video cameras to monitor and record activity on the casino premises.
The OGLC states that Ontario Provincial Police officers assigned to the Investigation and Enforcement Bureau of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which regulates casinos, maintain a full-time policing presence within gaming facilities to conduct criminal investigations in relation to gaming activities and work closely with local police in relation to other offences. The OGLC also employs its own surveillance and security personnel who work closely with the on-site OPP officers.
On June 24, 2001, the appellants, a husband and wife, attended a casino operated by the OLGC and an incident occurred during which, the husband has alleged, two OLGC employees wrongfully detained and assaulted him. As a result, on September 26, 2001, the appellants commenced civil proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the OLGC and the two employees, seeking damages for their alleged losses.
The first access request, refusal and appeal (PA-020021-1)
On November 19, 2001, the husband made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to a videotape of the incident. The OLGC replied by offering the husband an opportunity to view the videotape at the casino’s offices. On January 21, 2002, the husband appealed the decision of the OLGC, taking the position that he is entitled to a copy of the videotape. As a result, this office opened appeal PA-020021-1. Subsequently, the husband received a copy of the videotape from the OLGC in the context of the civil litigation discovery process, and therefore withdrew his appeal.
...
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
BACKGROUND:
The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC) is an agency of the Ontario Government that operates province-wide lottery games, charity and aboriginal casinos, slots facilities at racetracks, and commercial casinos. Like other operators of casinos, the OLGC employs security measures to ensure the integrity of the gaming, the safety of patrons and the protection of assets. These security measures include the use of video cameras to monitor and record activity on the casino premises.
The OGLC states that Ontario Provincial Police officers assigned to the Investigation and Enforcement Bureau of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which regulates casinos, maintain a full-time policing presence within gaming facilities to conduct criminal investigations in relation to gaming activities and work closely with local police in relation to other offences. The OGLC also employs its own surveillance and security personnel who work closely with the on-site OPP officers.
On June 24, 2001, the appellants, a husband and wife, attended a casino operated by the OLGC and an incident occurred during which, the husband has alleged, two OLGC employees wrongfully detained and assaulted him. As a result, on September 26, 2001, the appellants commenced civil proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the OLGC and the two employees, seeking damages for their alleged losses.
The first access request, refusal and appeal (PA-020021-1)
On November 19, 2001, the husband made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to a videotape of the incident. The OLGC replied by offering the husband an opportunity to view the videotape at the casino’s offices. On January 21, 2002, the husband appealed the decision of the OLGC, taking the position that he is entitled to a copy of the videotape. As a result, this office opened appeal PA-020021-1. Subsequently, the husband received a copy of the videotape from the OLGC in the context of the civil litigation discovery process, and therefore withdrew his appeal.
The second access request and “deemed refusal” (PA-030277-1)
The husband subsequently was informed (rightly or wrongly) that the uses to which he is permitted to put a videotape, obtained through the civil discovery process, are subject to restrictions. As a result of this concern, the husband and wife jointly made a new request to the OLGC under the Act for access to the videotape.
The OGLC did not provide an access decision within 30 days as required by the Act. A failure to comply with this requirement is deemed by the Act to be a refusal of the access request, which may be appealed to this office. The requesters appealed the OLGC’s “deemed refusal” and this office opened Appeal PA-030277-1. The OLGC subsequently issued a decision. As a result, this office closed Appeal PA-030277-1.
The “frivolous and vexatious” decision and appeal (PA-030277-2)
The OLGC’s decision was to refuse to provide a copy of the videotape on the grounds that the request was frivolous and vexatious. The requesters appealed the decision and this office opened Appeal PA-030277-2. That appeal was resolved by Order PO-2282. In Order PO-2282, Senior Adjudicator David Goodis determined that the request was not frivolous or vexatious and ordered the OLGC to give the appellants an access decision.
The current refusal and appeal (PA-030277-3)
On June 17, 2004, the OLGC issued a decision refusing access to the videotape based on the exemptions from the duty to disclose found in sections 14(1)(i) (endanger security of a building) and 14(1)(l) (facilitate commission of an unlawful act) of the Act. On June 21, 2004, the requesters (now the appellants) appealed this decision, and Appeal PA-030277-3 was opened.
On receipt of this appeal, this office assigned a mediator to attempt to resolve the appeal. Mediation was unsuccessful and this inquiry commenced. Initially, a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues in this appeal was sent to the OLGC, which was requested to make representations. The OLGC was asked to identify any portion of its representations that it did not want this office to share with the appellants for reasons of confidentiality. The OLGC made representations. It did not request that any of these representations be kept confidential. Accordingly, the OLGC’s representations in their entirety were sent to the appellants, who were invited to respond and did so.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
In order to determine which sections of the Act may apply, it is necessary to decide whether the record contains “personal information” and, if so, to whom it relates. That term is defined in section 2(1), in part, as follows:
“personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,