General

• When access is provided under the Act, the head has no power (except in respect of research agreements) to impose restrictions on the use of the record. The fact that the requester previously obtained possession of the same record outside of the Act does not affect his or her right to obtain access to the record under the Act. (Order #P-164)

• The Act does not entitle a requester to require an institution to keep track of records previously obtained by the requester, particularly where the requester has filed numerous, broad requests with that institution. (Order #M-1019)

• The Commission has jurisdiction to review a Head's decision about where a record to which access has been granted can be viewed. (Order #M-1044)

• There are no provisions in the Act to provide certified copies of records. (Order #P-1493)

• In this case the requester sought to have the original record reviewed by a handwriting expert in a location off-site from the institution. The Commission found that this section should not be restricted to the viewing of the original record. Thus the institution was ordered to reconsider their decision. (Order #M-1044). In (Order #M-1058) the Commission confirmed that the institution reconsidered their decision and granted access to a forensic hand-writing expert of the appellant's choice to examine original records on condition that they are not altered and returned to the institution.

ss.(1)

• Where a copy of the records disclosed to the requester is illegible and it is not possible, due to the nature of the records to reproduce it clearly, the institution must give the requester the opportunity to examine the original records (Order #M-715)

ss.(2)

• It is not reasonably practicable to provide access to an original record where exempt material has been severed from the record. (Order #P-2)

• Subsection (2) does not specifically require an institution to provide requesters with an opportunity to view the record at the location of their choice in the province. The requester's preferred location for viewing may be acceptable if it is reasonably practicable. It is the responsibility of a head to demonstrate that the means of viewing suggested is not reasonably practicable. Undue inconvenience or unreasonable expense as well as the preservation of the security and integrity of the record are important factors. (Orders #P-6, P-7, P-8)

• The institution provided an affidavit which indicated that it was not reasonably practicable to permit the requester to view the original severed records without disclosing personal information that is exempt under the Act. The Commission was satisfied that personal information of others would be visible if the originals were examined. (Order #P-485)