The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Phil Wall, has released his Report 2007-014 under authority of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. A summary of the Report is included below.

To view the Report in its entirety, please go to //www.oipc.gov.nl.ca/reports.htm

Report: 2007-014
Report Date: October 24, 2007
Public Body: College of the North Atlantic

Summary: The Applicant applied to the College of the North Atlantic ("CNA") for access to certain e-mail records. CNA responded by citing section 10(1)(b) and section 8(2) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the "ATIPPA"). CNA later dropped its reliance on section 8(2) after the Applicant questioned its relevance to the request, but maintained its reliance on section 10(1)(b) because it said that the volume of records to be searched was so large as to interfere unreasonably with its operations. The Applicant then amended his request, to reduce the number of records to be searched. CNA responded by saying that there were no records responsive to the amended request. The Applicant filed a Request for Review with the Commissioner�s Office and provided evidence that responsive records did exist. CNA then did a further search, found the responsive records, and confirmed that an error had been made. CNA subsequently provided the Applicant with copies of the responsive records, while withholding some information on the basis of sections 20, 21, 22, 24 and 30 of the ATIPPA. During informal resolution efforts, CNA agreed to release all additional records which were proposed for release by the Commissioner�s Office. After the additional records were released by CNA, the Applicant decided not to resolve the matter informally and asked the Commissioner to proceed with a Report. It was also discovered during the course of this Review that CNA had been in error about the number of records involved for which it had claimed section 10(1)(b), although CNA maintained its position that the number of records was still too high. The Commissioner agreed that CNA was justified in its use of section 10(1)(b), despite its earlier error. The Commissioner also found that CNA was not correct when it stated to both the Applicant and to the Commissioner that it had previously checked and confirmed the number of records which prompted its claim of section 10(1)(b). The Commissioner further determined that the CNA had failed in its duty to assist, because it did not respond to the Applicant within a reasonable standard of accuracy.

-30-

Media contact:
Sandy Hounsell
Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
709-729-6309