TORONTO (June 25, 1997) - In a ruling that was largely irrelevant to the primary concern (i.e., the validity of the information being provided) raised by Fp representative Jim Montag under a Freedom of Information appeal, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has concluded that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) conducted a "reasonable search" when providing Montag with financial records. Those records relate to expenses incurred by the OHRC in its pursuit of a racism complaint against London landlord Elijah Elieff. (See last two issues, Freedom Flyer).

However, despite its conclusion, the privacy commission nevertheless ordered the OHRC to provide records not previously offered under Montag's original Freedom Of Information request.

In his seven-page "Order P-1417", privacy commission Inquiry Officer Donald Hale dismissed Montag's "extensive representations" which questioned the validity of the information that the OHRC had been providing.

"The appellant submitted extensive representations," wrote Hale. "However, for the most part, they detail a series of alleged discrepancies between the expense information submitted by counsel and the progress of the human rights complaint which was the subject of the OHRC's investigation and the subsequent Board of Inquiry and the Divisional Court proceedings. Little of this information is of assistance to me in determining whether the OHRC's search for responsive records was reasonable."

In his representation, Montag outlined his entire experience with the OHRC, from its initial denial that any records existed at all, to the contradictory information provided intermittently over a period exceeding a year.

Hale's ruling suggests that the Information and Privacy Commission's criteria for judging what constitutes a "reasonable" provision of information has little to do with accuracy or credibility of the information, but with the "reasonableness" of the EFFORT expended to provide the requested information. If so, then there is no third-party mechanism available to pursue an objective of determining the truth, other than the possibility of forcing the matter to court.

Wrote Montag: "Information provided was totally inadequate, incomplete, confusing, and misleading. To us, this appears as nothing other than a deliberate, although futile, attempt at obfuscation."

Although the Freedom Of Information ruling has resulted in the provision of additional "information" to Montag, the issue of whether or not that information actually reflects reality has yet to be resolved. Stay tuned to this newsletter for further developments. Copies of Fp's representation, the Information and Privacy Commissioner's Order, and other background information are available to Fp members and supporters on request. Contact us!

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002