|
|
 |
| s.29 |
SUMMARY OF ORDERS/PRIVACY REPORTS |
s.22 |
ss.(1)(b)
-
It is implicit in ss.(1)(b) that the head provide the requester with a general description of
the records responding to the request. The head must also advise the requester of the
specific sections or subsections relied upon as exemptions. (Orders #P-81, P-154, P-324, P-406, M-500)
-
An institution must be reasonably precise in describing severed records so that the notice
of refusal accurately reflects the head's decision. (Order #P-38)
-
Where a decision letter deals with partial access to a record, it is not always necessary to
provide general descriptions of the severed material. In this case, it was apparent on
reviewing the severed version of the record disclosed to the requester what the severed
portions were, and the severances were clearly marked with the relevant exemption
claimed. (Order #P-482)
-
This provision does not impose any specific requirements on an institution in situations
where it chooses to disclose a record. (Order #P-1312)
ss.(1)(b)(ii)
- "A restatement of the language of the legislation is generally not sufficient to satisfy the requirements in section 29(1)(b)(ii) (Order M-936)." The IPC encouraged the institution to expand on the reasons it provides to requesters for denying access to records in the future. However, a restatement of the statutory language was found to be adequate in the circumstances since the appellant had the necessary information to address the issues in the appeal.
(Order #PO-1879)
-
In this case, the Commission ruled that the institution did not comply with this provision
by simply repeating the wording of the exemptions that were claimed. The requester must,
by virtue of the reasons provided by the institution, be in the position to make a reasonably
informed decision on whether to seek a review of the head's decision. As a result, the
reasons must indicate why the institution applied the exemptions to the records. (Order
#P-547, and see also Orders #P-158, P-235, P-298, P-324, P-482, P-554, P-537, P-547, P-553, P-717 and "IPC Practices", June
1992.)
-
Reasons contained in a notice of refusal would be sufficient if they were accompanied by
a more detailed description or index of records. An appropriate index also speaks to the
reasonableness of the search conducted by the institution. (Order #P-324, M-655)
-
If a decision letter does not contain any description of the records, it may still comply with
this provision if the letter is accompanied by an index of the records, which describes the
contents and subject matter of the records at issue. (Order #P-554)
-
Where all the records are part of a generic class, an index of records is not required. (Order
#P-717)
-
The utility of an index would be enhanced if for each record the institution included the
name of the author and recipient and the subject matter of the document. (Order #M-457)
-
It is not necessary for an institution to provide a Vaughan-like index to the appellant. The
Vaughan Index is an American practice which stems from a fundamental difference
between the process under FIPPA and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act
because FIPPA
appeals are decided by a quasi-judicial body, that is the Commission and the American
systems is based on courts. (Order #P-880)
-
When a decision letter does not contain information e.g. an index regarding records that
were disclosed from a file, the Commission may require the institution to issue a new
decision letter. (Order #M-563)
-
[A] head is required to provide a requester with information about the circumstances which form
the basis for the head's decision to deny access. The degree of particularity used in describing
the record at issue will impact on the amount of detail required in giving reasons, and vice versa.
For example, if a record is described not in general terms, but rather as a memo to and from particular
individuals on a particular date about a particular topic, then the reason the provision applies to the
record could be given in less detail than would be required if the record were described only as a memo.
The end result of either approach is that the requester is in a position to make a reasonably informed
decision as to whether to seek a review of the head's decision. (Order #MO-1281)
ss.(1)(b)(i) and (ii)
-
The head is required to provide a requester with the reasons for the application of the
exemptions, which form the basis for the head's decision to deny access. Specifying which
part of a provision applies to a record is not the equivalent of providing the reason a
provision applies. The reason provided to the requester should be sufficient to allow the
requester to make an informed decision as to whether to seek review of the head's decision.
(Orders #P-158, P-187, P-189, P-235, P-298, P-324, M-90)
-
Where the institution's notice is deficient because the request is a repetition of a previous
request by the appellant, and where access to the records had been granted, it would serve
no purpose to require the head to issue a new notice. (Order #P-187)
ss.(1)(b)(iv)
-
In order for this notification to be meaningful it must include a reference to the 30-day
appeal period established by s.50(2) [FIPPA] \ s.39(2) [MFIPPA]. Where notification
letters fail to state the statutory time limit for appeals they do not meet the mandatory
requirements of this section. (Order #M-430)
-
It is reasonable for an institution to rely on its searches and decision letters from previous
requests by the same requester when the requests are the same and where new responsive
records are unlikely to have been created. (Order P-914)
|
|
|
OCIPO 