Complaint
Our office received a complaint about an access request for briefing notes that was refused by the Public Body based on several ATIPPA provisions.
Investigation
We found that the Public Body did not adequately explain their rationale for refusing access, and that the cited provisions did not apply to some of the information at issue (e.g. they could not demonstrate that the release of certain information would result in financial harm). In other cases, the Public Body had withheld information they deemed to be cabinet records under section 67, but our investigation found that some of the severed information was not part of a cabinet record.
Some of the information within the records package had been severed because the Public Body thought it wasn’t relevant to the access request, and therefore, they deemed it “out of scope.”
Decision
Noncompliant. A public body is not obligated to provide an applicant with irrelevant information. However, the ATIPPA does not contain a provision authorizing a public body to redact information within the records package that may not be relevant (i.e. out of scope) – information can be redacted only in accordance with an exemption to the right of access established in the Act. A determination about relevancy must be made earlier in the access request process, when information is provided to the Designated Access Officer for review. As it pertains to this complaint, it was our view that the information deemed “out of scope” was in fact relevant to the request.
Recommendations
Accepted. The Public Body maintained their position with respect to information that was “out of scope.” However, they accepted our recommendations to release information to the applicant in an amended response (including the information they felt was out of scope), which resolved the matter.