|
|
 |
Manual
Danger to Safety or Health s.20
FIPPA / s.13 MFIPPA
This section of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)/Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) provides a
discretionary exemption relating to records, the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of any
individual. The wording "reasonable expectation of harm"
requires an institution to establish a clear and direct linkage between
disclosure of information and the harm alleged.
This exemption is not intended to restrict an individual's right of access
to his/her own personal information, except where disclosure could
threaten the safety or health of another individual. Where there is an
exemption and the head has exercised his/her discretion against
disclosure, the head should also consider whether disclosure of the record
could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a
law enforcement officer or any other person under s.14(1)(e) FIPPA /
s.8(1)(e) MFIPPA.
The public interest override in s.23
FIPPA / s.16 MFIPPA
applies to this exemption but not to the exemption provided by s.14
(1)(e) FIPPA / s.8 (1)(e)
MFIPPA.
"In Ontario (Minister of Labour), the Court of Appeal for Ontario drew a distinction between the requirements for establishing "health or safety" harms under sections 14(1)(e) and 20, and harms under other exemptions. The court stated (at p. 6):
The expectation of harm must be reasonable, but it need not be probable. Section 14(1)(e) requires a determination of whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that disclosure could be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a person. In other words, the party resisting disclosure must demonstrate that the reasons for resisting disclosure is not a frivolous or exaggerated expectation of endangerment to safety. Similarly [section] 20 calls for a demonstration that disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual, as opposed to there being a groundless or exaggerated expectation of a threat to safety. Introducing the element of probability in this assessment is not appropriate considering the interests that are at stake, particularly the very significant interest of bodily integrity. It is difficult, if not impossible, to establish as a matter of probabilities that a person's life or safety will be endangered by the release of a potentially inflammatory record. Where there is a reasonable basis for believing that a person's safety will be endangered by disclosing a record, the holder of that record properly invokes [sections] 14(1)(e) or 20 to refuse disclosure.
[D]espite this distinction, the party with the burden of proof under section 20 still must provide 'detailed and convincing evidence' of a reasonable expectation of harm to discharge its burden. This evidence must demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis for believing that endangerment will result from disclosure or, in other words, that the reasons for resisting disclosure are not frivolous or exaggerated."
(Order #s MO-1262, PO-1747 and PO-1861)
|
OCIPO 