I am writing to provide you with my preliminary findings regarding your complaint to this office about the routine disclosure practices of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB).
In your complaint letter, you objected to the fact that the WCB diverted your request for your claim file from the formal freedom of information (FOI) request stream to the Records Management Department (RMD) for processing under its routine or "Normal Course of Business" (NCB) disclosure procedures. You also felt that the RMD should adhere to the 30-day legislated deadline under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) and objected to the fact that the RMD, as of the date of your letter, had not yet disclosed your claim file. I note that the WCB provided you with routine disclosure of your claim file X on 12 November 1996.
I first compiled a series of questions for the FOI office at the WCB in order to clarify the rationale, policy and procedures for the WCB's NCB disclosure practices. I also requested information on the NCB process and the average turnaround time for NCB and F0I disclosures. I then analyzed the replies, a relevant Commissioner's order, section 71 of the Act and the government's policy and procedure manual chapter on this issue. I present below what I learned.
Rationale for Routine or NCB Disclosure
The WCB has had a practice of routinely disclosing claim files to claimants almost since the date the Act came into effect. Until that time, there was no process for claimants to obtain copies of their claim files, except where they had appealed a WCB decision. The routine disclosure process was developed to enable claimants to obtain copies of their claim files without the need to resort to the formal FOI process.
.../2I understand that routine disclosure applies in other situations as well, for example, disclosure of the claim file to the worker and employer after an appeal. In that example, I understand that both worker and employer receive entire copies of the relevant claim file information.
The WCB is normally able to disclose a claim file in full to the claimant concerned. That is, there is rarely a need to apply exceptions. Thus, it makes sense for the WCB to categorize claim files as routinely disclosable to the claimants themselves. (If there is information a claimant might not be entitled to under the FOI legislation, s/he is told to request it formally in an FOI request.)
The WCB's RMD normally has physical control of the files and is already engaged in the business of making appeal and legal disclosures. In addition, the RMD has up-to-date electronic scanning equipment which enables it to scan and reproduce claim files more quickly that the FOI office could photocopy them. Thus, this unit undertakes all three types of non-FOI disclosure (that is, routine, appeal and legal), both for the sake of efficiency and because staff have been trained to handle all three.
By way of comparison, the FOI office deals with requests for other types of information which are not normally routinely available to claimants, such as accident investigation reports, investigation information, fatal claims information and criminal injuries compensation information.
Process and Timing for Routine Disclosure
When the WCB receives a request for disclosure of a claim file, the request is forwarded to the RMD for processing. I understand that there can be some competition for a claim file, with conflicting requests coming from a variety of sources. Operational areas may need claim files to process claims or deal with disputes over the claim. The Workers' Compensation Review Board may need or have the claim file. Every telephone call or letter from the claimant, an MLA or other interested person usually results in a request for the file.
To deal with this competition, WCB staff assume that any claims activity that the claimant is involved in with the WCB takes precedence over a claimant's request for her/his claim file. It follows that file requests from WCB's operational areas (such as the rehabilitation area) take precedence over the RMD's requests for claim files to process NCB disclosures. If no one else needs or has the claim file when a claimant requests routine disclosure, the RMD will likely have the claim file and be able to place it in the queue for processing on a first-in/first-out basis.
When the claim file reaches the head of the queue, RMD staff review it and release the records, normally in their entirety. On occasion, and where applicable, the RMD staff set aside records which contain information that the claimant might not be entitled to under FOI legislation. The claimant is told that some information could not be routinely released and that s/he may request it formally under the FOI process.
The RMD processes 1,600-1,800 claim file disclosures per month. Of these, approximately 50 per month are NCB disclosure. The average turnaround time to date has been just under 30 days. The WCB regards routine or NCB disclosure as separate from the formal FOI process. It does not consider that the legislated 30-day deadline in the Act applies to this form of disclosure.
For comparison purposes, I understand that FOI requests may be processed in 30 days but that the Freedom of Information and protection of Privacy Office sometimes requires more time.
Chronology of your request
It is not clear when the WCB received your request, dated 16 September 1996. However, I see from the correspondence you provided to our office that the FO1 office acknowledged receipt of your request on 26 September 1996. The reason for this 10-day gap was that the FOI office had a large backlog of mail and was short of support staff. The request for the claim file went to the RMD at about the same time. The RMD received your claim file on 3 October 1996.
On 9 October 1996, however, your claim file went to the Disability Awards area to respond to compensation issues you had raised. The claim file returned to the RMD on 7 November 1996. The RMD released a copy to you on 12 November 1996. I am told that approximately 10% of claim files that the RMD is processing for routine disclosure are requested by other areas which have greater priority.
Again by way of comparison, 1 understand that the FOI office responded to the FOI portion of your request on 16 October 1996 and that you received the records on 21 October 1996. However, I also understand that the FOI office dealt with records other than the claim file.
Thus, routine disclosure of your claim file occurred 57 days after you requested it, while the FOI response (which dealt with a different set of records)`went out 30 days after you requested your records.
Information and Privacy Commissioner's Order No. 86-1996
In this order, the Commissioner dealt with the issue of an applicant's request for his files held by the Ministry of Social Services, as it was then. While the applicant had requested his files formally under the Act, the Ministry had treated the request routinely (i.e.,, outside the scope of the Act) and offered to provide the applicant with access to his records at a district office. The Commissioner made the following observations:
It might be arguable, under circumstances different from those of the present applicant, that routine disclosure of information might deprive an applicant of reliance on the full force of the Act. But since the Ministry will copy and disclose to him any of his records that he wishes to see, it is hard to see what his problem is. Promoting more and more routine disclosure of general and personal records is one of the goals of my Office and of public bodies subject to the Act. A major rationale is cost effectiveness, a goal that is very much in the interests of taxpayers.
The applicant has not stated that he feels threatened or inconvenienced by having to visit a District office. In the past, the Portfolio Officer reviewing this case with the applicant has offered to go to the office in question with him. My understanding of the standard security practice of the Ministry is that applicants for information usually have to pick up the records being disclosed at a Ministry office.
I am very concerned about the burgeoning costs to innumerable public bodies of granting individuals access to their own personal records. Clerical and copying charges are significant in this regard. I have been impressed by the good faith efforts of public bodies, broadly defined, to comply with the goals of the legislation in this regard. What I must also plead for, on their behalf, is that individuals exercise their access rights responsibly. I do not regard the present applicant as acting in that manner, such as when he threatened the Ministry on September 14, 1994 that he would request updates about his personal information every two weeks thereafter.
Section 71(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
This section reads as follows.
The head of the public body may prescribe categories of records that are in the custody or under the control of the public body and are available to the public, on demand, without a request for access under this Act
Thus, public bodies are encouraged to put their minds to categorizing certain records as readily releasable without review. Public bodies may then provide routine access to such records without requiring the public to resort to the formal and bureaucratic FOI request process.
Chapter C. of the government's manual (copy attached) discusses this issue and notes that, while the Act gives people a right of access to their personal information, it is not necessary to use the Act for this purpose. This chapter also makes it clear that section 71 is interpreted as also encouraging public bodies to designate certain categories of personal information as being available to the person concerned without a formal FOI request.
Our office also encourages routine disclosure as being less bureaucratic and likely less expensive than formal FOI request processing. We believe that personal information should also be routinely available to the person concerned as much as possible. The Act should be the avenue of last resort for access to government records.
For example, an employee's personnel records should, almost without exception, be available to that employee without an FOI request. There should only be rare circumstances where an employee would not be entitled to receive her/his own personnel records.
As another example, the Ministry of Human Resources provides its clients with routine access to their GAIN files in most cases. There are some exceptions, such as where the ministry is carrying out an investigation into an allegation of fraud.
Comments on the Existence of WCB's practice of NCB Disclosure
The WCB is thus authorized under section 71 of the Act to categorize certain types of records as available, on demand, without a request for access under the Act and has chosen to designate claim files as routinely available to the claimant concerned. I believe that the WCB has developed a sensible and defensible process for dealing with requests for claim files. Indeed, I applaud the WCB for deciding to deal with requests for claim files in the non-bureaucratic fashion it has, and in a complete reversal of its previous practice of having no routine process for providing copies of claim files.
Finding (1)
I therefore find that your complaint that your request for your claim file should have been dealt with under the Act to be unsubstantiated.
Does "available on demand" mean immediately available?
The timing of routine disclosure may vary depending on where the records are held and whether or not they are also needed for operational reasons. Records may be on site, in off-site storage or in use in another city.
The former Information and Privacy Branch (responsible for the above-mentioned government policy and procedures manual) has interpreted records available "on demand" as being quickly available. If they are not available right away, then they should be available within a previously defined period of time, perhaps as little as a few working days. Designating certain records as routinely available or available on demand should not, however, thwart an individual's right to timely access to her/his own personal information. (Indeed, the Information and Privacy Commissioner made a similar comment in Order 86-1996, as quoted above.)
While I agree with the general tenor of the branch's thinking, I do not agree that "available on demand" means that a person should necessarily expect access to her/his personal information on the spot or within a few working days, although this may be possible for some offices. With the limited resources at its command, it is reasonable for a public body's operational needs to take precedence over routine disclosure and for a public body to provide routine disclosure within a few weeks of a request. Nevertheless, while it is reasonable for routine disclosure to take place within a few weeks, it should not take months. In such a case, 1 would consider that a policy of routine disclosure was thwarting access.
Comments on Timing of WCB's Routine Disclosure
The WCB is a large public body with immense operational programs whose primary responsibility is to process claims. The WCB also has large volumes of files and file requests: the RMD alone processes 18,000-19,000 requests for file disclosures every year. In my view, it is neither reasonable nor practical to expect the WCB to respond to routine file requests in a few working days. I find the WCB's average turnaround time of approximately 30 days to be reasonable.
In your case, the routine disclosure process was delayed by the fact that your claim file was diverted for a month to the Disability Awards office in order to answer certain concerns you had raised. Otherwise, you would most likely have received the copy of your claim file within the average time, if not earlier. The WCB states that the 57-day turnaround time in your case was an isolated incident caused by competing demands for the claim file. Based on the average turnaround figures and the fact that only about 10% of claim files are requested by operational areas from the RMD while awaiting processing for routine disclosure. I accept this statement.
However, I recognize that you may not have been aware that the timing of your request for your claim file would conflict with the Disability Awards office's overriding need for the file to deal with your concerns. Had you known, you might have chosen to delay one or the other process. You would at least have been better informed as to the reasons for the delay in disclosure.
Finding (2)
I find that the WCB's average turnaround time of 30 days for routine disclosure is comparable to the legislated timelines for FOI disclosure and is satisfactory. I also find that the delay in routine disclosure of your claim in this case was an isolated incident and that there was no intent to thwart access to your personal information.
Recommendation
In order to make claimants aware of any potential delays in routine disclosure, I have suggested to the FOI office at the WCB that it add a phrase to its acknowledgment letters to the effect that claimants can normally expect routine disclosure of their claim files within 30 days, but that if there is activity at the WCB requiring the use of the claim file, there may be a delay in the routine disclosure. The WCB has agreed to do this.
Closing Remarks
If you wish to comment on my findings, please let me know by 21 February 1997. If I have not heard from you by this time, I will interpret this to mean that you are satisfied with my findings and I will close my file on your complaint.
Yours sincerely,
X, Portfolio Officer att. cc.
Information and Privacy Program Workers' Compensation Board
Response letter dated February 12 1997: February 12 1997 Re: Complaint and Request for Review - Freedom of Information Request - OIPC X Dear X:
David Flaherty
THE OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Fax # (604) 387-1696
This will confirm our telephone conversation of today’s date during which you refused to provide any explanation for the content of your February 3, 1997 letter, which clearly displays a complete lack of knowledge of the facts related to my request for review OIPC File: X, and which ended by your hanging up on me in a rather incredible display of immature and unprofessional conduct.
In a telephone conversation of November 8, 1996 and a follow-up letter of November 12, 1996 (attached), you were advised that any reliance on file information compiled during X’s involvement would, in general, be a waste of time and result in a further unnecessary delay.
It was also requested at that time that you provide me with “a summary conclusion detailing your interpretation of my position and foundation of complaint.”.
You chose to ignore both my advice and my request.
The result, is your letter of February 3, 1997, in which you fail to accurately report even something as simple as relevant dates, you claim to be unclear about information that is, in fact, clearly noted in documentation which you acknowledge possession of, and in fact make reference to in your letter, you make factual statements which are contradicted even by the Board itself, and admit to having no evidence to support your statements, and most seriously, you approve the Boards practices based on your own lack of knowledge of the meaning and intent of the very legislation it is your job to ensure compliance with.
Although you avoid acknowledgement of the purpose of my Request for Review received by your office October 23, 1996, in the opening of your letter, it is to be made clear that that letter of October 22, 1996 was, as noted, a request for review of the WCB’s failure to respond as required to my formal FOI request for disclosure of information, confirmed to have been received at the Board’s Freedom of Information (FOI) office September 16, 1996, and that I did not accept the Boards reasoning that their Records Management Department’s (RMD) Normal Course of Business (NCB) disclosure procedures, qualified them for exemption from FOI Legislation.
In paragraph 2 of your cover page you repeatedly refer to the ‘claim file’, and again it is to be made clear that my formal FOI request was for ‘any and all information’ and since you are qualifying, and in fact condoning, the Boards disclosure practices based on what you term their routine disclosure of the ‘claim file’ I am requesting that you provide clear and concise clarification of what records are considered to make-up what the Board categorises as the ‘claim file’ and what records are categorised as being held apart from the ‘claim file’.
With respect to your statement that I “felt that the RMD should adhere to the 30-day legislated deadline”, I once again remind you that my request was made as a Formal FOI Request and under the legislation it is the responsibility of the head of the public body to ensure compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) regardless of what departments are required to assist in compiling the required information.
You are in error in noting that the WCB provided me with routine disclosure of my claim file on November 12, 1996 as the disclosure package was still at the Board as of November 13, 1996.
In paragraph 3 of your cover page you state you “compiled a series of questions for the FOI office at the WCB in order to clarify the rationale, policy and procedures for the WCB’s NCB disclosure practices.”
Since you admit to forwarding my documentation to the Board for their review and response I expect equal treatment and reciprocal privilege and I am requesting a copy of these questions so I may be provided the same opportunity of review and response.
Similarly I am requesting you provide documentation qualifying the Boards purported “average turnaround time for Normal Course of Business and FOI disclosures.”, and whether or not it applies to all Service Delivery Locations.
In paragraph 4 of your cover page you state “The routine disclosure process was developed to enable claimants to obtain copies of their claim files without the need to resort to the formal FOI process.”
The use of the word “developed” indicates the Board changed it’s disclosure procedures in some way other than to simply drop the requirement for there to be an initiation of the appeal process, and therefore, I am requesting written clarification of the WCB’s disclosure practices, detailing the differences between current practice and the Board’s practices prior to the date the Freedom of Information Act came into effect, as well as clarification of the Boards September 16, 1996 Policy Directive denying applicants who have initiated an appeal FOI requests for their claim file information.
In paragraph 1 of page 2 you make reference to “relevant claim file information.” in relation to “routine disclosure”, and therefore I am requesting that you provide the Board’s definition of “relevant claim file information”, the procedure followed to dissect “relevant claim file information” from other information, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s official position on this practice.
In paragraph 2 of page 2 you state “The WCB is normally able to disclose a claim file in full to the claimant concerned. That is, there is rarely a need to apply exceptions.” Since information categorized as “routinely disclosable” is information which is readily available without the need for review or severing, please provide an explanation as to how the Board becomes aware of these ‘rare exceptions’. Likewise, since the WCB’s RMD staff has repeatedly stated they are not trained in FOI legislation or policy, please provide an explanation as to how RMD staff identify information indicated by your statement “(If there is information a claimant might not be entitled to under FOI legislation, s/he is told to request it formally in an FOI request.)”.
In paragraph 3 of page 2 you state “The WCB’s RMD normally has physical control of the files and is already engaged in the business of making appeal and legal disclosures.”, which would indicate that the RMD has ready access to the claim file at all times with the exception of those instances when the file is being actively worked on in another operational area, and I am requesting that you confirm this impression.
I am also requesting clarification regarding your reference to the RMD’s “up-to-date electronic scanning equipment” versus the FOI “photocopy”, and specifically whether or not RMD disclosures are dependent on the accuracy of character recognition as opposed to the FOI method which is designed to provide a true copy reproduction.
I am also requesting confirmation as to whether or not the RMD is using this opportunity to convert information for creation of an electronic file.
Further clarification is also required clearly detailing the difference between the “three types of non-FOI disclosure (that is, routine, appeal and legal)” you note, and the training criteria used for each, as well as the criteria used to classify information as noted in paragraph 4 of page 2 as being held apart from the claim file keeping in mind the content of section 99.30 of the WCB’s Rehabilitation Services Claims Manual.
With respect to “Process and Timing for Routine Disclosure” and since the question here is to what extent the Records Management Department provides any file management please confirm whether or not the RMD makes any attempt to establish the most productive path for file movement.
For example:
I am also requesting a copy of the Policy Directive cited by the RMD in authorizing their practice of maintaining disclosure requests at the very lowest priority.
In paragraph 1 of page 3 and still under the heading of “Process and Timing for Routine Disclosure” you clearly confirm that RMD staff “review” and “release” records with the exception of “information that the claimant might not be entitled to under FOI legislation.”, which clearly supports my initial contention that the WCB’s NCB disclosure practice fails to satisfy the requirements for routine disclosure as set out in FOI legislation and again raises the question of qualifications of RMD staff with respect to FOI legislation.
Paragraph 2 of page 3 notes that out of 1,600-1,800 RMD disclosures per month approximately 50 are NCB disclosures. Please provide the breakdown as to the category which the other 1,550-1,750 disclosures fall into, and as the 30 day turnaround time applies to the NCB disclosures, please provide documentation as to the disclosure times achieved in the other categories, and specifically the confirmed percentage of formal FOI disclosures provided within the legislated 30-day deadline.
Under your heading “Chronology of your request” , as noted earlier, you state “It is not clear when the WCB received your request, dated 16 September 1996.”, and you are reminded that in fact documentation which you acknowledged receipt of at the outset, clearly confirms that the WCB received my request on September 16, 1996 and stated that I should expect to be provided with disclosure by October 15, 1996.
It is interesting to note that this “large backlog” and “short staff ” situation seems to have become the norm rather than the exception and since this seriously affects an applicants rights to timely access, it clearly warrants thorough investigation.
What isn’t quite clear is your statement that “The request for the claim file went to the RMD at about the same time.” (September 26, 1996).
The RMD didn’t receive my request for disclosure from the FOI office until September 30, 1996, they then requested it October 1, 1996 and although it was sent from it’s prior location that same day, October 1, it isn’t noted to be received in the RMD until October 3, 1996 which would not in fact be an unacceptable travel time if not for the surrounding circumstances.
Medical Accounts, which had the file between September 13, and October 1, had no need for the file for the length of time they had it and were able to send it out the same day they were notified it was needed.
On October 9, 1996, only 6 days prior to the date the WCB acknowledged as the date disclosure was due under the Act, and only 1 day before X, Manager, Records Management Department, indicated I should expect disclosure, the RMD elected to release the file to Disability Awards where it sat idle with no active attention for the better part of the month that it was there.
You state “The claim file returned to the RMD on 7 November 1996. The RMD released a copy to you on 12 November 1996.”. November 7th was a Thursday, November 11th a holiday, therefore the RMD required no more than three working days to receive, prepare, and release a disclosure package which actually took two months for me to receive and spent more time travelling back and forth than was required to accomplish the task.
With respect to your statement “I am told that approximately 10% of claim files that the RMD is processing for routine disclosure are requested by other areas which have greater priority.”, I once again expect that you can provide documentation supporting this figure, especially in light of the evidence that the Board routinely provides incorrect, incomplete information and more specifically the statement by a WCB FOI analyst that the WCB FOI office provided incorrect information to your own office, influencing an OIPC Order, which they made no attempt to correct.
I also suggest you seriously weigh the ramifications of the statement by one Board officer that “Adjudicators and their managers are well aware they can stall disclosure by requesting the file, or otherwise arranging alternate routing and the time advantage over the claimant this practice gives them”.
As a matter of correction to your paragraph 7 of page 3, “routine disclosure”, my claim file actually went out 58 days after I requested it and the FOI response went out 31 days after I requested it. As well, the “different set of records” provided by the FOI office were, mostly, records required to be provided under a previous Formal FOI Request.
It is interesting to note your inclusion and referral to IPC Order No. 86-1996.
Although I appreciate your reference to this order in that it categorically supports my argument and position, I suspect this was not your intention, and therefore I invite you to clarify your perception of the significance of this order. I would also give serious consideration to the accusations of the applicant in this case, whether founded or not, and as to how they might relate to inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information and communication.
Section 71(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act makes provision for a public body to establish categories of records which are available on demand without the need for a formal request, it does not restrict or supersede legislated access to personal information.
WCB claim files are required to be, and are purported to be, in all cases, subject to review prior to disclosure, and therefore do not fall into this category.
I would also remind you that contrary to your position, and the Boards practice in this regard, Chapter C of the governments policy and procedures manual makes it clear that, in the absence of an authorization in an enactment, a policy`of releasing information through an existing channel does not prejudice the individuals right to make a formal FOI request for the information.
In paragraph 2 of page 5 you state “We believe that personal information should also be routinely available to the person concerned as much as possible.”, which again leaves me in a position to thank you for qualifying my complaints against the WCB, however once again your comments are not supported by your conclusions and I invite you to provide any plausible explanation as to how you consider the Board’s refusal to provide ongoing access, failure to provide disclosure of large volumes of information through either “routine disclosure” or the “formal FOI request” process, and an open defiance of their own information handling policies undertaken in an intentional effort to restrict access, to be open, co-operative, and “less bureaucratic”.
Your “Comments on the Existence of WCB’s practice of NCB Disclosure” have essentially been addressed here-in and are clearly a result of a complete lack of appropriate understanding of the letter and intent of the FOI Act and current and historical information handling practices of the WCB. In fact, what you refer to as a “sensible and defensible process”, Board officers refer to as “chaotic”, “outdated”, and “in need of a complete overhaul”, and I remind you that a practice developed out of administrative negligence that fails to meet those reasonable needs of those effected, does not qualify as “defensible”, nor can its continuance be justified or supported, much less “applauded”, due to any claims of administrative hardship.
Given the points noted here-in one can only conclude your “Finding (1)” is, in fact, unsubstantiated.
In paragraph 7 of page 5, aside from issues already referred to above, you state “Records may be on site, in off-site storage or in use in another city.”, and I am requesting that you detail the circumstances that result in information being stored “off-site” as opposed to “on-site” as well as what circumstances result in a file being “in use in another city”.
Given the fact that WCB claim file information is classified as confidential information please provide confirmation as to what security measures are undertaken related to off-site storage and travel, to ensure the integrity of the information is maintained.
In paragraphs 1 & 2 of page 6 you once again qualify my own argument and I seriously question the extent of your investigation into this matter given the fact that in questioning workers’ advocates, both union and independent, as well as Ministry of Labor Workers’ Advisors, numerous lawyers, injured workers’ and those within the WCB, the answer with respect to disclosure times is the same 100% of the time, "months", and I challenge you to provide verifiable documentation to the contrary, as well as verifiable documentation showing how many disclosures provided within the Boards purported “average turnaround time” are incomplete requiring a further request, or other attention.
Again, your “Comments on Timing of WCB’s Routine Disclosure” have largely already been dealt with here-in and I remind you that you have provided no evidence to support your statements and / or conclusions and that the WCB has created its’ own monster knowingly and purposefully and its’ cries of administrative hardship are far from valid.
What is valid are the concerns of claimants whose restricted access to information denies them their rights to fair and timely access to the legal process and results in unnecessarily prolonging and perpetuating, physical, emotional, and financial stressors for themselves, as well as their families.
With respect to “Finding (2)” , the fact that all other proof is to the contrary and you have provided no documentation to support your statements, and that the WCB’s unauthorised policy to deny compliance with FOI legislation is in itself intended to thwart access to information, and that to date disclosure of information as related to my September 16, 1996 FOI request remains incomplete, your “Finding (2)” is unsubstantiated.
In closing let me make my intentions and expectations clear so as to avoid any misunderstanding.
I will not tolerate incompetence, negligence, indifference, political or bureaucratic ‘back-scratching’ or any other departure from sound, legal application of the legislation and common law.
Although I respect your right to your opinion I suggest you save it for a time when you’ve achieved a recognised status of policy maker. Your responsibility at this point is to know and clearly understand the letter and intent of current FOI legislation and to ensure its correct application and compliance.
It would seem to be indicated by the content of your February 3, 1997 letter, that you are unsure of the content and / or intent of current FOI legislation and government policy and could use some refinement of your investigative skills. The alternative reasoning is, of course, much more serious.
I suggest you address this issue with X as I am requesting he be provided with a copy of this letter and I will be pursuing this, as well, through other channels.
I am mindful however of X’s comment that ‘X is not particularly interested in individual issues but is more interested in the overall academic question of freedom of information and protection of privacy’ and I suggest you remind him that he was not appointed to provide a platform for some scholarly quest.
You are also reminded that you are working on the Commissioners behalf, not in his place and in fact the performance of OIPC Portfolio Officers is a direct reflection on X’s reputation and performance, which as you know is up for review and in fact is the appropriate place for you to voice your opinions as we will ours and which I guarantee will be supported by fact.
You have wasted almost 4 months to learn what you should have known at the outset, you allowed the WCB an extension to your own request for information which could have been compiled in an hour, in mid-December you informed me that you had received and reviewed all the information and would be able to respond in a couple of days.
I have no problem accepting an unfavourable decision if it is valid, yours is completely devoid of validity or merit and your recommendations totally inadequate.
I expect an expedient resolution.
Thank you, X