say this despite the fact that the Law Society seems to concede the converse in its third bullet in
para 19 of its submission.)
[para 28] In Order P2015-05, the Director of Adjudication considered the above decision in
the context similar to the one at hand. A former employee had made an access request to an
Organization for his personnel file. She found (at paras. 31-33):
The greatest part of the withheld information consists of discussions about the Applicant and his
job-related issues amongst other employees of the Organization whose role it was to deal with
these issues, as well as statements of other employees who recounted events involving the
Applicant. To a large extent, these discussions include ideas or intentions as to how his
employment issues should be dealt with. The records also include descriptions of how the
Applicant behaved or reacted in certain situations, that are value-laden in that they reveal the
speakers’ opinions about the Applicant and the way these persons interpreted events concerning
him. (Because the discussions are work-related rather than personal, most of the ‘opinion’
information in this category does not appear to be – though some of it may be – the personal
information of the employees engaged in these discussions and making these statements.)
With respect to such information, I agree with the reasoning in the decision of Commissioner
Work, cited above, as well as the reasoning of the Adjudicator in Order P2012-04. Insofar as this
withheld information consists of the intentions, ideas and opinions of the other employees, it does
not consist solely of the Applicant’s personal information, nor does some of it consist of his
personal information at all.
To illustrate the latter point, X’s statement that “I believe we should take steps a, b and c to deal
with Y’s employment complaint” is not Y’s personal information. While the fact Y has made an
employment complaint is Y’s personal information, the steps X believes should be taken to
address it, though related to Y, are not. Ultimately, if the steps are taken and affect Y’s situation,
this may, at that point, be Y’s personal information, for example, that Y accepted a new position.
However, the intervening considerations or discussions by others about the merits of the
complaint and how to resolve it, are not. Most certainly they are not if the suggested steps are
never effected. Even if they are, only the way Y’s situation is affected by the outcome, and not
why and by whom this was effected, is personal information in the sense of being “about Y”
within the terms of the Act.
[para 29] Lastly, an organization’s duty in section 24(1.1) to provide requested personal
information is subject to considerations of what is reasonable. As stated in Order P2008-007, the
phrase “taking into consideration what is reasonable” under section 24(1.1) of the Act is
informed by section 2, which states:
2 Where in this Act anything or any matter
(a) is described, characterized or referred to as reasonable or unreasonable, or
(b) is required or directed to be carried out or otherwise dealt with reasonably or in a
reasonable manner,
the standard to be applied under this Act in determining whether the thing or matter is
reasonable or unreasonable, or has been carried out or otherwise dealt with reasonably or in a
8