OIPC Review Report - Part 1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 [70] In their access to information request, the Applicant asked for, “quotes received by the RM since January 2020 for Livestreaming” (item 3 in their access to information request). The RM’s response was, “there are no written quotes”. The RM did not provide any further information regarding how it came to this conclusion, including if it undertook any search efforts that could at least support its assertion that written quotes do not exist. As such, I find the RM did not undertake a reasonable search for records. I recommend that within 30 days of receiving this Report, the RM undertake a search for the record in question and provide the Applicant and my office with the details of its search efforts in a new section 7 response to the Applicant. 8. Was the RM’s response compliant with section 7 of LA FOIP? [71] As per my office’s notification of June 30, 2021, I am reviewing if the RM’s response to the Applicant of May 3, 2021, was compliant with section 7 of LA FOIP. [72] Section 7 of LA FOIP provides that an applicant must receive a response from the local authority. The response must be within 30 days and must contain certain elements, which are enumerated at sections 7(2) and (3) of LA FOIP (Guide to LA FOIP, Ch. 3, p. 26). [73] The RM’s initial section 7 response stated it was denying access to the records because: 1) code of ethics complaints are confidential and able to be withheld, along with other records, pursuant to Part III of LA FOIP; 2) the quote for livestreaming did not exist; and, 3) meeting minutes are published on the RM’s website. Based on the RM’s response, sections 7(2)(b), (d), (e) and 7(3) of LA FOIP are relevant in this case. These sections provide: 7(2) The head shall give written notice to the applicant within 30 days after the application is made: … (b) if the record requested is published, referring the applicant to the publication; … (d) stating that access is refused, setting out the reason for the refusal and identifying the specific provision of this Act on which the refusal is based; (e) stating that access is refused for the reason that the record does not exist; 20
REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 [74] With respect to the 30 days in which a local authority must respond, I note the RM received the Applicant’s access to information request on April 8, 2021, and responded on May 3, 2021. This was within the 30-day time limit to respond. [75] With respect to the RM’s response directing the Applicant to the RM’s website for copies of RM meeting minutes, section 7(2)(b) of LA FOIP requires a local authority to provide such direction. As such, I find the RM was compliant with section 7(2)(b) of LA FOIP. [76] With respect to the RM’s response that ethics complaints were confidential and could be, along with other records, withheld pursuant to Part III of LA FOIP, section 7(2)(d) of LA FOIP required the RM to explicitly state on which provisions of LA FOIP it was relying to withhold these records. With prompting from my office, the RM later indicated to the Applicant it was denying access pursuant to section 22(1)(c) of LA FOIP. However, I find the RM’s response of May 3, 2021, did not meet the requirements set out by section 7(2)(d) of LA FOIP. [77] With respect to the RM’s response that records related to quotes for livestreaming did not exist, the RM was required to explicitly cite section 7(2)(e) of LA FOIP, but did not do so. In the future, it is good practice that the RM do so. [78] Finally, section 7(3) of LA FOIP requires a local authority to state an applicant may request a review by my office within one year of receiving the local authority’s response. Again, with prompting from my office, the RM did include this in its new response to the Applicant. However, I find the RM’s section 7 response of May 3, 2021, did not meet the requirements set out by section 7(3) of LA FOIP. [79] In conclusion, I find the RM’s section 7 response of May 3, 2021, complied with section 7(2)(b) of LA FOIP, and did not comply with sections 7(2)(d) and 7(3) of LA FOIP. I recommend the RM ensure its future section 7 responses to applicants are in compliance with section 7 of LA FOIP. 21
Page 1 and 2: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 Rural Munici
Page 3 and 4: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 [6] On June
Page 5 and 6: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 [13] Section
Page 7 and 8: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 [21] Section
Page 9 and 10: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 23(1) Subjec
Page 11 and 12: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 identify the
Page 13 and 14: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 We currently
Page 15 and 16: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 connotes a m
Page 17 and 18: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 positions, p
Page 19: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 • alphabet
Page 23: REVIEW REPORT 121-2021 V RECOMMENDA

OIPC Review Report - Part 1

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?