Adjudication Order No. 5
September 22, 1997
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
AND IN THE MATTER OF
AN ADJUDICATION UNDER Section 62
REQUESTED BY [G.R.] ON APRIL 22, 1996
REASONS FOR DECISION
OF THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BAUMAN
[l] [Mr. R.] has applied pursuant to s. 62 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the "Act") for a review of the decisions made by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the "Commissioner" ) in request numbers 3538 end 3539.
[21 In 3538 [Mr. R.] sought:
"...Copies of all actions initiated by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner relative to a written complaint by [Mr. R.]. that Dennis Lieutard did not respond to Bill Trott's October order to provide complete information in files, contrary to Trott's order..."
[3] In 3539 he sought:
"...copies of all mediation efforts prior to the s.43 application of the Ministry of' Employment and Investment. "
[g] By letter dated August 16, 1996 the Commissioner refused the request, finding that the documents were operational records of the Commissioner's office and hence, were beyond the scope of the Act pursuant to s. 3(1)(c) thereof.
[5] In his request for review dated August 22, 1996, [Mr. R.] states:
"These records are central to a s. 43 FIPPA application by the MOE&I and prejudices my ability to respond fully and thoroughly to the s. 43 application"
[6] In fact, the Commissioner rendered his decision on the s. 43 application on August 23, 1996. By that decision the Commissioner made the following order:
"Therefore I authorize the Ministry to disregard the following:
1. All outstanding requests for records by [Mr. R.].;
2. All future requests for records which relate to mineral claims of
[Mr. R.], the dispute with the Drinnans, and the allegations of wrongdoing by the Ministry;
3. All requests of any kind for a period of one year by [Mr. R.]
[7] Arguably, this review is now moot as the ground upon which it is advanced - the need for full preparation for the s. 43 hearing - has been displaced by a final order in that particular proceeding.
[8] Nevertheless, in deference to the submissions filed by the Commissioner, I will consider the request for review.
[9] I should note that I invited the parties to make submissions in writing on the merits of the review.
(10) The Commissioner, through counsel, filed a comprehensive brief on January 28. l997.
[11] [Mr. R.] chose not to do so after being invited again to make submissions by my memorandum of May 5, 1997.
[12] I have reviewed the documents and the files of the Commissioner.
[13] In my opinion the Commissioner's refusal of the request is properly grounded on s. 3(1)(c) of the Act.
[14] The decision of Madam Justice Levine in [Mr. R]. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (June 30, 1997) [Adjudication Order No. 3] cannot be distinguished from the facts on this review. There she upheld the Commissioner's application of s. 3(1)(c). The decision of Esson (then C.J.) in [Mr. H.] v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (September 6, 1996) [Adjudication Order No. 1] is to the same effect.
[15] Pursuant to ss. 65(2) and 58(1) of the Act, I dispose of this adjudication by confirming the Commissioner's decisions to refuse access to the records requested by [Mr. R.]
Bauman, J.