Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Order No. 87-1996
February 29, 1996
INQUIRY RE: A third party's request for a review of a decision by the
Ministry of Transportation and Highways to give an applicant access to two
letters that she had written to the Ministry
Fourth Floor
1675 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
Telephone: 604-387-5629
Facsimile: 604-387-1696
Web Site: http://www.cafe.net/gvc/foi
1. Description of the review
As Information and Privacy Commissioner, I conducted a written inquiry at the
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in Victoria on February 16,
1996 under section 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (the Act). This inquiry arose out of a request for review by a
third party of two letters sent by her to the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways (the Ministry). The Ministry gave section 23 notice to the third
party and then decided to grant the applicant complete access to the two
letters. This case appears to be a continuation of the events that led to
Order No. 34-1995, February 3, 1995.
2. Documentation of the inquiry process
The applicant submitted a written request to the Ministry on July 5, 1995.
The Ministry clarified the request with the applicant on August 17, 1995 and
identified two letters written to the Ministry by the third party on June 27,
1995 and July 4, 1995. The Ministry wrote to the third party on September 12,
1995, giving her third party notice under section 23 of the Act, and
subsequently wrote on October 5, 1995 to the applicant and the third party,
under section 24 of the Act, to advise them that the Ministry had decided to
give the applicant complete access to the two letters. The third party then
wrote to my office on October 19, 1995 to request a review of that decision.
3. Issue under review at the inquiry and the burden of proof
The issue under review in this inquiry is the application of section 22 of the
Act to the two letters written by the third party and sent by her to the
Ministry. The relevant section is as follows:
22(1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal information to
an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third
party's personal privacy.
Section 57 of the Act establishes the burden of proof. Under
section 57(3)(a), since the records contain personal information about the third party,
it is up to the applicant to prove that disclosure of the information would not
be an unreasonable invasion of the third party's personal privacy.
4. The records in dispute
The two letters each contain the third party's name, address, telephone
numbers as well as the name and mailing address of a District Area Manager of
the Ministry, to whom the letters were addressed. One of them also refers by
name to two other Ministry employees.
5. The applicant's case
This case involves a parking dispute among neighbours in Port Alberni,
who were once friends. The applicant believes that obtaining access to these
letters in dispute will help put an end to the third party's complaints to the
Ministry. He argues that there is no personal information in either of these
letters that he does not already know.
The applicant states that he wishes to obtain the records in dispute as a
basis for an eventual law suit against the third party for harassment.
6. The Ministry's case
The basic position of the Ministry is that section 22(1) of the Act does not
apply to the records in dispute. Although there is some personal information
in them, in the form of the names of the third party to this inquiry and of
three employees of the public body, plus telephone, addresses, and FAX numbers,
the Ministry argues that disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of
anyone's personal privacy. (Submission of the Ministry, p. 5)
7. Discussion
In her submission, the third party essentially contests various assertions of
the applicant that have little to do with the issue of the applicant's access
to the two letters. She denies any harassment of the applicant and states that
her complaints to the Ministry are legitimate.
The reality is that the letters in dispute were written by the third party to
an official of the Ministry to seek access to various pieces of information.
They are straightforward "business" letters. There is no possible reason under
section 22 of the Act why they should not be disclosed to the applicant.
8.
Order
I find that disclosure of the records in dispute would not be an unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy under section 22(1). I find that the Ministry of
Transportation and Highways is not required to refuse access. Under
section 58(2)(a) of the Act, I require the head of the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways to give the applicant access to the records in dispute.
February 29, 1996
David H. Flaherty
Commissioner