GENERAL COMMENTS  -  About the IPC and its Orders

NOTICE OF INQUIRY  -  My Comments about this Order

NOTICE OF INQUIRY  -  Appeal Number: M-9500118

NATURE OF THE APPEAL

RECORDS

ISSUE A:      Whether the information responsive to this aspect of the
                        request  is a "record"   as defined in the Act.

To assist the parties, the following questions may be relevant in the circumstances of this appeal.

ISSUE B:   Whether the requirements of section 19 of the Act are met by the
                    requirements of section 25 of the Act in the circumstances of
                    this appeal.

                    DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS:
                    EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
                    DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIONS:
                    BURDEN OF PROOF:
                    TESTS:

APPENDIX A

                    STATUTORY PROVISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE NOTICE OF
                    INQUIRY

They sent me notice of what should be the issue to be address in the upcoming Inquiry but as soon as the Information and Privacy Commission saw that the Canadian Environmental Law Association  was on board with a submission supporting my position & later the City forwarded to me samples of the ARIS system, proving beyond a doubt that we were right and the City was lying - the IPC seeing the City would lose and be shown as presenting falsehood to the IPC, changed what was at issue.  Meaning all the work that went into making submission to what was presented in the official Notice of Inquiry, were effectively flushed down the toilet by the IPC!  It was like going into court with a winning case for a speeding ticket and getting convicted of parking!

When you read the Order for this Appeal M-716, it is clear the IPC (Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Commissioner), deal not deal with the issues so clearly spelled out in this Official Notice as the issues to address.  There was not Inquiry as to access to the City's ARIS system, in fact Tom Mitchinson, brushes the whole issue aside with this statement "In my view, the information contained in the opening paragraph of this and other similar request letters submitted by the appellant relates to the form in which the appellant would like to receive the records and falls outside the scope of the substantive access request. "  The ARIS issue was agreed by all party's as being at the issue in this Appeal and as soon as the City would lose and Hazel records would be endanger of being made public, the issues in this Inquiry were changed without notice by the IPC, ensuring we could not make submissions, guaranteeing we would lose!  The IPC calls that fair!  Why yes, with a straight face they say take us to court if you don't like it!

A lawyer did review this decision and agrees it is wrong, as it is not governing on the issue or the questions asked in the Notice were not answered.  Do you know what makes me really upset?  The IPC has the gall to quote this Order as having dealt with the ARIS issue?  That is how unprofessional and irresponsible they are.  Does not matter how you defeat the public just as long as you do!

Another reason to think the IPC was in bed with Hazel McCallion?  Read the following statement from the City of Mississauga;

"The City indicates that it has spent approximately 3 hours producing this one page document."
&
"The document prepared by the City for this appeal deals with the ARIS index for EC. 12 and is one page with 24 entries.  The entries contain coded information which identifies file storage information."

How can anyone, especially the IPC believe that so-called trained & professional City staff would take 3 HOURS to create a ONE PAGE document with only 24 ENTRIES on it!  Does this mean the the City's computer and staff are so PRIMITIVE that it was Fred Flintstone chiselling the data into a stone tablet?  Is this how our tax dollars are spent?

Fact is, I provided proof the City was making false statements and in order to not deal with the City lying to the IPC the entire ARIS had to be discarded otherwise the IPC would have to publicly state in its Order the City of Mississauga is presenting falsehoods to the IPC.  Or as the Canadian Environmental Law Association has said "We submit that this claim, on the part of the City, lacks credibility."

To further prove the City will lie first to keep its secrets and Hazel promise to not provide records - Click Here

Does the Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), have a hidden agenda regarding the releasing of  government computer records?  Is that the reason why I was stone walled by bureaucrats and their frivolous & vexatious reasons.   Would access to City computer files be what the government and the IPC want to make sure does not happen and be the reason why I got abused by the City and IPC, so badly?
Check this out.

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

VIA PRIORITY POST

Dear Mr. Barber:

RE:      Notice of Inquiry
            City of Mississauga
            Appeal M-9500118

Your appeal is now in the inquiry stage.  The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) provides that parties involved in an inquiry are entitled to make representations to this office.  It is the practice of this agency to invite the parties to submit their representations in writing.  Representations generally include comments on the facts and issues in the appeal, as well as any documents or other relevant evidence.

You are not required to submit representations, but you may do so if you wish.  I am enclosing a Notice of Inquiry which summarizes the facts and issues in the appeal.  Copies of the statutory provisions referred to in the Notice of Inquiry are also included.  If you believe that there are additional factors which are relevant to this appeal, please refer to them.  The deadline for receipt of representations is December 13, 1995.  Please send them to this office, to the attention of Norma Thorney, Registrar of Appeals.

Once representations are received, they will be considered by the person making the decision in this appeal, and an order will be issued to resolve the outstanding issues.  I will not be contacting you again during this process unless I need to clarify something in your representations.

Should your representations not be received by the date specified in this letter, the decision making process will proceed, and an order may be issued in the absence of these representations,

If you have any questions about making representations, or if you would like to discuss any other aspect of your appeal, please contact me at (416) 326-0092.

Yours truly,

Walter Richardson
Appeals Officer

Encl.

The appellant made a request to the City of Mississauga (the City) for access to "the larger files/records listed as your file #EC.10.Cawthra Woodlot and EC.12".  In the preamble to the request the requester asked "please include where the file/record (its location in ARIS or IRIS), is held and by who or who looks after the record". [N.B. ARIS and IRIS are the
acronyms for the computer system index the city uses to control its records.]  The City provided access to the records described as #EC. 10 Cawthra Woodlot and EC. 12.

The requester appealed the City's decision on the basis that the City did not provide information as to "where the file/record (its location in ARIS & IRIS), is held and by who or who looks after the record".

During mediation the City stated that the location of the file, within the ARIS/IRIS system was the reference number (EC 10 & EC 12) as the appellant had stated in his request.  This information was passed onto the appellant who stated that more records should exist either in the file or
with other staff relating to the nature of the City's filing system.

During mediation the City identified that, ARIS means Active Records Index System.  IRIS means Inactive Records Inventory System.  ARIS and IRIS is an automated indexing system which provides a reference number for file classification and provides a very short description of the material in the actual paper file folder.  One entry exists for each file created.

Also during mediation the City took the position that there exists no obligation under the Act to provide the requester with the information requested.  The City bases their position on 1) the Act identifies the obligations of an institution to provide requesters with descriptions of records as set out in section 25 (which the City has provided to the requester) and that no further obligation exists to provide descriptions of records in their custody or control, and 2) The record of the nature requested would have to be created by the City in response to the
request.

Further, during mediation and at the request of this office, the City produced (from the raw data) a document which lists all the files contained within the ARIS index file number EC. 12.  This document also contains a numeric location code as to the location (department) of the actual paper file.

The City indicates that it has spent approximately 3 hours producing this one page document.

Further mediation was not possible.

[NB:  Although the City has identified the amount of time spent on producing the document in the course of mediation, issues relating to possible fees are not addressed in this appeal.]

The document prepared by the City for this appeal deals with the ARIS index for EC. 12 and is one page with 24 entries.  The entries contain coded information which identifies file storage information.

ISSUE A:      Whether the information responsive to this aspect of the
                        request  is a "record"   as defined in the Act.

Section 2(l) of the Act defines record as:

"record" means any record of information however recorded, whether in printed form, on film,
by electronic means or otherwise, and includes,

 (a)      correspondence, a memorandum, a book, a plan, a map, a drawing,
            a diagram, a pictorial graphic or work, a photograph, a film a microfilm
            a sound recording, a videotape, a machine readable record, any
            other documentary material, regardless of physical form or
            characteristics, and any copy thereof, and

 (b)      subject to the regulations, any record that is capable of being
             produced from a machine readable record under the control of an
            institutions by means of computer hardware and software or any
            other information storage equipment and technical expertise
            normally used by the institution; ("document")

Ontario Regulation 823/90 provides further assistance in section 1 which states:

(1)  A record capable of being produced from machine readable records is not included in the definition of "record" for the purposes of the Act if the process of producing it would unreasonably interfere with the operation of the institution.

1.    In what form does the requested information exist?

2.    Is the requested information capable of being produced from machine
        readable records?

3.    If the requested information does not exist in the form requested, and is
        not capable of being produced from machine readable records, does it
        exist in the form of "raw data" which could be disclosed to the
        requester?

4.    What process is required to produce the record?  Please explain.

5.    What computer hardware and software or any other information,
        storage, equipment and technical expertise is normally used by the
        institution?  Why would this be insufficient to produce the record?

DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS:

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

In instances where institutions have claimed a discretionary exemption(s), the institution is asked to include representations which indicate what factors were considered in deciding to exercise discretion in favour of applying each of these exemptions.

DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIONS:

In order to assist the decision maker in this appeal, the parties are requested to submit with their representations any background materials, documentation, policies, statutory provisions, by-laws, or case authorities, which support their representations.

BURDEN OF PROOF:

Please note that under section 42 of the Act, where an institution refuses access to a record or part of a record, the burden of proof that the record or part of the record falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act lies upon the institution.

TESTS:

The tests mentioned in the Notice of Inquiry are intended to assist the parties to make their representations.  Please note that where the IPC has not yet articulated a test, no test is included.

Section 2 of the Act states, in part:

(1)  In this Act,

....

"record" means any record of information however recorded, whether in printed form, on film,
by electronic means or otherwise, and includes,

(a)    correspondence, a memorandum, a book, a plan, a map, a drawing,
          a diagram, a pictorial graphic or work, a photograph, a film a microfilm
          a sound recording, a videotape, a machine readable record, any other
          documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics,
          and any copy thereof, and

(b)    subject to the regulations, any record that is capable of being
         produced from a machine readable record under the control of an
         institutions by means of computer hardware and software or any other
         information storage equipment and technical expertise normally used
         by the institution; ("document")

....

Section 17 of the Act states in part:

....

(2)      If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the
            institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer
            assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with
            subsection (1).

Section 19 of the Act states:

Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 18, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 20 and 21, within thirty days after the request is received,

 (a)     give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether
            or not access to the record or a part of it will be given; and

 (b)     if access is to be given, give the person who made the request access
            to the record or part, and if necessary for the purpose cause the
            record to be produced.

Section 25 of the Act provides:

(1)       A head shall cause to be made available for inspection and copying
            by the public information containing,

 (a)      a description of the organization and responsibilities of the
            institution;

 (b)      a list of the general classes or types of records in the custody or
            control of the institution;

 (c)       the title, business telephone and business address of the head; and

 (d)       the address to which a request under this Act should be made.

(2)        The head shall ensure that the information made available is
              amended as required to ensure its accuracy.

Section 42 of the Act states:

If a head refuses access to a record or a part of a record, the burden of proof that the record or the part falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head.

Ontario Regulation 823/90 states in part:

(1)       A record capable of being produced from machine readable records
            is not included in the definition of "record" for the purposes of the Act
            if the process of producing it would unreasonably interfere with the
            operation of the institution.