00 10 61 SMITH, Ross Applicant c. PUBLIC PROTECTOR Public body On April 26, 2000, the applicant addressed to the Public Protector a request for release of a «full copy of my file and all correspondence between yourself and the members of your staff, a few of which are listed below…Georges Wenster, Marie-Jose Peloquin, Daniel Jacoby…». On May 30, 2000, the person in charge of access to documents and of protection of personal information for the public body gave effect to the request; she wrote :«I am writing in response to your written request, dated 27 April 2000 and received by me on 10 May of the current year, to obtain a copy of your Québec Ombudsman file. I have identified only one file concerning you…». She gave the applicant the number of his file and she described for him the documents held in this file. She finally decided that all these documents could be released to him except for «five pages of a Québec Ombudsman staff member’s working notes» and «a cover page of a fac simile sent to Ms Mariette Potvin from M e Péloquin.». She finally gave the reasons for this denial and she indicated the legal provisions on which such denial was based :«The working notes of staff members are not accessible under section 9, clause two of the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information, and sections 24 and 34 of the Public Protector Act. Under the latter Act, the Québec
00 10 61 2 Ombudsman’s interventions are carried out privately, which means that the public does not have access to their proceedings or their results. Section 34 of the same Act stipulates that, notwithstanding section 9 of the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information, no person has access to any document that contains information obtained in the performance of the duties of the Ombudsman, his assistant, public servants or his staff members. However, you do have access to the outcome of the intervention (sect. 27.1, Public Protector Act), as indicated in M e Péloquin’s letter (2 August 1999). On June 6, 2000, the applicant applied to the Commission for a review of this decision. He has not, however, stated the reasons for which the decision should be reviewed. On July 31, 2001, the Commission sent to both parties a notice of the hearing that was fixed for September 11, 2001. An English version of this notice was sent to the applicant on August 31, 2001, in Ontario. On September 11, the applicant requested the posponement of the hearing; he explained that he had just received the English version of the notice of hearing and that his lawyer in Montréal had his file in hand. DÉCISION : The postponement is granted.
00 10 61 3 The day and time of the hearing, together with the place where it will be held, shall be fixed by the person in charge of the Commission’s roll. The applicant is hereby authorized to participate in the hearing of his case by phone. He is also ordered to state, in writing and before November 2001, the reasons for which the decision should be revised by the Commission; such statement shall be sent to the Commission and to the Public Protector. HÉLÈNE GRENIER Commissaire Québec, September 11, 2001.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.