File: 02 01 35 Date: 20030609 Commissioner: M e Jennifer Stoddart X Applicant v. VILLE DE MONTRÉAL (POLICE DEPARTMENT) Public Body DECISION THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW [1] On January 2, 2002, the applicant wrote “the change of name department” of the “Directeur de l’état civil of the government of Quebec”, concerning information about a possible name change of a third party. The applicant wrote on the letter that copies were sent to some 16 different organizations, ranging from a consulate to a restaurant chain. Included in those the applicant sent copies to was the “Legal Affairs Division S.P.C.U.M. Qc”. [2] Accordingly, the person in charge of access to documents at the respondent public body wrote to the applicant on January 9, 2002, stating that in accordance with sections 28 and 53 of the Act Respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information 1 (the “Act”), it could not comply with the applicant’s request. It further explained how the applicant could apply to the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec (“the Commission”) to have this decision reviewed. 1 R.S.Q., c. A-2.1.
Page: 2 [3] The applicant wrote to the Commission on January 21, 2002, and a file was opened. THE HEARING [4] A hearing took place at the Commission's offices in Montreal on May 9, 2003, but the applicant did not attend. The Commission wrote to the applicant, the same day, summing up the public body’s position. By June 9, 2003, no comments had been received. [5] Counsel for the police department took the position that no request had been made directly to the public body. A reply had been sent to the applicant as a courtesy only, to explain that even if the applicant requested information concerning a third party, the public body would not release it because of the implications of article 53 of the Act. This was not an acknowledgement on the part of the public body that it held any information on the third party that the applicant was seeking. THE DECISION [6] The applicant, was trying to trace any information related to a possible name change of a third party. [7] The public body could not release, without consent, any information on the third party named by the applicant, even if it possessed such information. [8] Section 53 of the Act states: 53. Nominative information is confidential, except in the following cases: (1) where its disclosure is authorized by the person concerned by the information; […] [9] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION : [10] CONCLUDES that its further intervention would clearly serve no purpose and CLOSES the file. JENNIFER STODDART Commissioner M e Paul Quézel Attorney of the public body
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.