Information And Privacy Information And Privacy Commissioner/OntarioCommissioner/Ontario
Robert Binstock, Registrar
Leslie McIntyre, Mediator
Irena Pascoe, Adjudicator
September 14, 2001
THE APPEAL PROCESS THE APPEAL PROCESS IN ACTIONIN ACTION
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
3
TOPICSTOPICS
Welcome and IntroductionsIntakeMediationAdjudicationQuestionsWrap up
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
4
IntakeIntake
Program AssistantIona D'Souza
Program AssistantM aria Fernandez
Program AssistantLucy MacLeod
Program AssistantHaydee Tellez
Program AssistantDollis Pegus
Assistant Registrar - Program SupportNorm a Thorney
Intake AnalystM aggie Nebout
Intake AnalystEnza Ragone
REGISTRARRob Binstock
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
5
Intake - ScreeningIntake - Screening
Registrar and Intake Analysts have delegated authority to screen out files where:
(a) The matter, on its face, is not within the IPC’s jurisdiction; or
(b) The matter falls within the IPC’s jurisdiction, but the matter, on its face, is one that the IPC believes should not proceed through the appeal or privacy complaint process.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
6
Intake – StreamingIntake – Streaming
Registrar streams files into different dispute resolution and adjudicative streams - Intake, Mediation and Adjudication.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
7
Role of Intake AnalystRole of Intake Analyst
Public Contacts – mail, phone and in-person.
Screen out appeals.Other types of duties:
– clarify appeals– explain appeal process– redirect to other government organizations– deemed refusals
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
8
Role of Program AssistantRole of Program Assistant
Intake - open files, request records and appeal fees.
Program support to Intake Analysts, Mediators and Adjudicators.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
9
Intake – Case ExampleIntake – Case Example
Request: All records concerning an Employment Standards claim against requester’s company.
Decision: Partial disclosure. Personal Information denied as compiled as part of investigation into possible violation of law. Copies of IPC orders included.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
10
Intake – Case ExampleIntake – Case Example
Intake: Matter decided before. Wrote to appellant requesting submissions. Included 3 orders on point.
Decision: Appeal was dismissed and screened out as matter had been decided before. FOIC copied on letter to appellant.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
11
Intake - StatisticsIntake - Statistics
IN 2000 :20% (173) of all appeals closed (853) were
closed at IntakeFor appeals closed at Intake 78% were
withdrawn, 16% were screened out, and 6% were abandoned.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
12
MediationMediation
M ediators(7)
M anagerProvincial M ediation Team
Diane Frank
M ediators(5)
M anagerM unicipal M ediation Team
Giselle Basanta
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
13
Mediation - StreamsMediation - Streams
An appeal that moves to the Mediation stage, is assigned to one of the following streams:
Regular Appeal;Straightforward Appeal; orReasonable Search Appeal.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
14
Mediation - RegularMediation - Regular
The vast majority of appeals are processed in the Regular stream.
The Mediator contacts the parties, investigates the circumstance of the appeal and attempts to:– Settle all issues in the appeal; or– If not settled, narrow the issues that proceed to
Adjudication.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
15
Mediation – StraightforwardMediation – Straightforward
Appeals where the sole issue is a deemed refusal, time extension, transfer or adequacy of decision.
The assigned Mediator also acts as an Adjudicator.
After a short period of mediation, the Mediator has the authority to issue an Order, if not mediated.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
16
Mediation – Reasonable Mediation – Reasonable SearchSearch
Appeals where the sole issue is whether the institution has conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request.
One Mediator attempts to settle appeal.Another Mediator is designated as an
Acting- Adjudicator, who can issue an Order if not settled.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
17
Role of MediatorRole of Mediator
The goal of the Mediator is to assist the parties:
to fully and clearly understand issues in dispute;
to reach a voluntary, mutually acceptable resolution of some or all of the issues in dispute; and
to reduce the number of records at issue.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
18
Methods of MediationMethods of Mediation
Primary method used is shuttle mediation by telephone i.e. one phone call to one party, then to another party.
Conference calls.Face-to-Face mediation.We are increasing our usage of the last two
methods due to the real benefits they present to the parties.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
19
Advantages of MediationAdvantages of Mediation
Each party can explain it’s position. Retain control by working together. Issues are clarified, options generated, and
agreements negotiated. Quicker than formal dispute resolution. Win-win settlement that might not be possible
through Adjudication. Builds trust, understanding and communication
between parties.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
20
Mediation – Case ExampleMediation – Case Example
REGULAR APPEALS - Example 1: An unsuccessful applicant for a job as a police
officer, requested his application file. During mediation, it was clear what he really
wanted was to know why he wasn’t hired. Mediator settled by arranging a meeting between
the appellant and the person who interviewed him.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
21
Mediation – Case ExampleMediation – Case Example
REGULAR APPEALS – Example 2: The appellant requested all records of complaints
to Animal Control about the dogs at a specific address.
The Mediator was able to clarify that what he really wanted was to know whether there was more than one complainant.
The institution agreed to tell him the number of complainants and the file was closed.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
22
Mediation – Case ExampleMediation – Case Example
STRAIGHTFORWARD APPEALS:The appellant appealed a lengthy time
extension.The Mediator was able to settle the appeal
when the institution agreed to release records in “batches”, as the were ready, rather than as a whole.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
23
Mediation – Case ExampleMediation – Case Example
REASONABLE SEARCH: An appellant appealed the municipalities decision
that no records existed relating to the removal of trees near his property.
The Mediator was able to determine that what the appellant really wanted was to understand why the trees were removed.
After the Mediator arranged for the appellant to receive an explanation, he agreed to close the appeal.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
24
Mediation - StatisticsMediation - Statistics
IN 2000: 60% of appeals processed through the Mediation
stage were closed within that stage, while 40% proceeded to the Adjudication stage.
For appeals closed at Mediation, 88% were mediated, 6% were withdrawn, 2% were abandoned, and 4% were closed by Order.
45% (381) of all appeals closed (853) were closed at Mediation
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
25
AdjudicationAdjudication
Adjudication ReviewOfficers
(2)
Adjudicators(6)
M anager of AdjudicationSenior Adjudicator
David Goodis
Assistant Com missionerTom M itchinson
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
26
AdjudicationAdjudication
Appeals may be steamed to the Adjudication stage either directly from Intake or from Mediation.
At the Adjudication stage, an Adjudicator will conduct an inquiry to dispose of the issues in the appeal.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
27
Overview of Inquiry ProcessOverview of Inquiry Process
Generally an inquiry involves: Parties submitting written representations (reps)
on the issues in the appeal, one party at a time; Reps being shared with other parties unless there
is an overriding confidentiality concern; and Adjudicator issuing an order disposing of some or
all of the issues in the appeal.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
28
Inquiry - Step 1 Inquiry - Step 1
Party with onus (usually institution) proceeds first.
Initial Notice of Inquiry (NOI) sets out the issues in the appeal and seeks reps.
First party has 3 weeks to submit reps.Adjudicator decides whether to invite reps
from the second party, or issue an order.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
29
Inquiry - Step 2 Inquiry - Step 2
Second party (usually appellant) proceeds next.
Same or modified NOI, along with a copy of first party’s non-confidential reps.
Second party has three weeks to submit reps.
Adjudicator decides whether to invite reply reps, or issue an order.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
30
Inquiry - Step 3 Inquiry - Step 3
Adjudicator may send a modified NOI to the first party, along with a copy of the second party’s non-confidential reps.
First party has 2 weeks to submit reply reps.First party may not raise any new issues in
reply.Adjudicator issues order.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
31
Sharing of RepresentationsSharing of Representations
In their reps, parties must indicate clearly and in detail:
which information in the reps, if any, the party wishes the Adjudicator to withhold; and
its reasons for this request.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
32
Sharing of RepresentationsSharing of Representations
Effective reps can be prepared by:– Preparing a single set of reps;– Highlighting the confidential portions to be severed;– Providing reasons for each severance;– Connecting reasons to IPC confidentiality criteria;– Addressing sharing of reps and attachments, even if
everything can be shared; and– Avoiding actual names (use pseudonym e.g. affected
person, accused).
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
33
Sharing of RepresentationsSharing of Representations
Adjudicator will review reps and, based on the confidentiality criteria, decide which portions (if any) will be shared with the other party/parties.
If Adjudicator does not accept the party’s request for confidentiality, he/she will provide advance notice of the decision to disclose the reps/portions of reps.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
34
Confidentiality CriteriaConfidentiality Criteria
Adjudicator may withhold information contained in a party’s reps where:– Disclosure would reveal substance of a record claimed
exempt – e.g., quotation from record at issue– The information would be exempt under Acts- e.g.,
personal information– The information is otherwise confidential – e.g.,
“Wigmore” four criteria for confidential communication
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
35
Adjudication – Case ExampleAdjudication – Case Example Order PO-1931 Intake: Resolved the deemed refusal appeal. Appellant subsequently appealed the access
decision. Mediation: Narrowed the scope of records and issues
in dispute. Adjudication: Involved all three steps. Ministry was asked to respond to certain new
issues/information raised by appellant. Narrowed the scope of records and issues in dispute .
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
36
Reconsideration of a DecisionReconsideration of a Decision
Criteria for reconsideration of order or any other decision:– A fundamental defect in the adjudication process;– Some other jurisdictional defect in the decision; or– A clerical error, accidental error or omission or other
similar error in the decision
IPC will not reconsider simply on basis of new evidence being provided.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
37
Adjudication - StatisticsAdjudication - Statistics
35% (299) of all cases closed last year (853) were closed during the Adjudication stage.
Of the appeals that were closed during the adjudication stage;– 74% were closed by order;– 12% settled after the beginning of an inquiry;– 8% were withdrawn;– 4% were dismissed without an inquiry; and– 2% percent were abandoned.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
38
Adjudication - StatisticsAdjudication - Statistics
Cases resolved by step:– Step 1: 35%– Step 2: 50%– Step 3: 15%
Many cases resolved after Step 1 – result: one party never had to make reps.
Most Step 1 cases involved reverse onus – institution never had to make reps.
Tip: Issue more detailed decisions to increase chance of reverse onus.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario
39
IPC ResourcesIPC Resources
Code of Procedure
IPC Web site: www.ipc.on.ca
Thank YouThank You
Questions welcome.
Top Related