Information Commissioner’s Office Slow to Help with FOI Requests
Email of April 15, 210
Subject: FOI request: transcript of illegally closed meeting, IPC File MA17-39
Dear Francesco,
As indicated in my letter of January 2, 2017, 3.5 months ago (attached, and see excerpt below), I did not make a separate fee payment of $5 for my request for the written transcript of the January 21, 2016 meeting because it was agreed at Council’s Meeting of September 8, 2016 (video: see the 14:35 mark) that all FOI fees relating to Council’s illegally closed meeting would be waived.
[You might be interested to know that, to this day, Staff continues to withhold the entire audio recording of this meeting from the public, including even the sections for which a written transcript was already provided.
Also, Council recently prevented the public from making any communications to them whatsoever on the topic of water fluoridation (baby poisoning), and the fluoridation committee has ceased operations for an indefinite period of time, even though concerned residents (including myself) were scheduled to delegate to Council with important questions regarding vague and nonsensical changes that Council recently decided to implement.
At this point in time, it is not even clear what Council’s new, allegedly lowered, target fluoride concentration is, since on March 9 Council implied that they would both lower the target level to 0.5 ppm (a level known to overdose babies) and also stay within the 0.5 – 0.8 ppm range, which is impossible since fluctuations will take the concentration both above and below the target level. They also claim to be adhering to some non-existent “standard” in doing so, and recently switched to a new source of fluoridation acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid, the same chemical that recently wreaked havoc on highway 401) without providing any information whatsoever to the public about this chemical aside from an un-sourced claim that it contains lower levels of 2 of its contaminants, arsenic and lead, both of which have no safe level in drinking water (MCLG = 0), and without any public input on which form of fluoride poisoning, if any, we would prefer (aka without informed consent).]
From: Christine Massey [mailto:cmssyc@gmail.com]
Sent: October 3, 2016 6:35 PM
To: ZZG-RegionalClerk
Subject: FOI Request: transcript of Jan. 21 2016 closed meeting
Hello Kathryn,
The following is a request made under MFIPPA for the written transcript of the Jan. 21, 2016 illegally closed meeting.
I understand that all fees will be waived.
Last name: Massey
First name: Christine
Address: #221 – 93 George St. S., Brampton ON L6Y 1P4
Phone: 905-230-4155
Email: cmssyc@gmail.com
Preferred format: A pdf document sent to me via email. I do not wish for anything to be shipped to me.
Description of Requested Items:
The written transcript of Regional Council’s Jan. 21st, 2016 closed fluoridation meeting.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Jurrius, Stephanie <stephanie.jurrius@peelregion.ca> wrote:
This is in response to your email to Kathryn Lockyer below dated October 3, 2016.
All fees related to FOI Request I23-16-317 would be waived.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Spokesperson for Fluoride Free Peel
*********
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Francesco Russo <Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca> wrote:
Hello Ms. Massey,
I require one more point of clarification: did you make a separate fee payment of $5 for the request to access the written transcript of the January 21, 2016 meeting? And if so, could you provide evidence for that payment?
Thanks,
Francesco Russo
Analyst
*********
From: Christine Massey [mailto:cmssyc@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Francesco Russo <Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca>
Subject: Re: IPC File MA17-39 Dear Francesco,
I am saying that I made 2 separate formal requests under MFIPPA: one for the audio recording, another for the written transcript.1) In reply to my first request which was for the audio recording, yes as you know the Region sent me letters and eventually, after much unnecessary delay, a heavily redacted written transcript.
For some sections of the meeting they provided nothing whatsoever, which I do not believe is in compliance with MFIPPA. For other sections they provided a format other than what I had requested, for no legitimate reason. Hence I am appealing the Region’s failure to supply the audio recording and have moved onto the mediation phase.
If you look at the letter that the Region provided to me along with the heavily redacted written transcript, it clearly indicates that it was provided in response to my request for the audio recording, not in response to my request for the written transcript.
2) In reply to my second, separate formal request under MFIPPA, which was for the written transcript, I have received nothing. Not even a letter acknowledging my request within 30 days, as required by law.59 days after submitting my second, separate formal request, I was told for the very first time in an email: “Please be advised that the audio recording of the subject meeting and the transcript has been processed under one access request (I23-16-317) based on the explanation provided above and said letters.”I do not believe that this email satisfied the Region’s obligation under section 19 of MFIPPA to respond to my access request within 30 days. And I have seen nothing in MFIPPA that allows the Region to combine 2 separate requests for 2 separate things into one request, especially without even notifying the requester within 30 days.Yes, I do now have part of the written transcript. But as far as I can tell, it was not provided in response to my second formal request in a way that satisfied the Region’s obligation under MFIPPA. Also I still do not have the entire transcript, and based on my reading of MFIPPA, I do not believe that there is a legitimate legal basis for withholding every word spoken by 2 of the pro-fluoridation experts. Hence I have appealed to the IPC for assistance.
You are advised to include bananas, blueberries, peanuts and dark cheap viagra australia chocolate in your daily diet. Each individual will undoubtedly confront certain unpleasant circumstance in some point or levitra cost of http://deeprootsmag.org/2019/10/26/october-knowledge/ the other however in a few individuals it increases and now and then holds on. Fantasy capsules have been engineered in bulk viagra scientific way to tackle issues of loss of muscle mass. It may cause darkening of tongue and black stool which is temporary. click that website buy viagra online
I submitted 2 separate requests because I want 2 separate things – 2 things that residents could have had over a year ago if the meeting had not been illegally closed to the public.I hope this clarifies the matter for you. I did try my best to make things clear in my letter.
Best wishes,
Christine
*********
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:38 AM,
Francesco Russo <Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca> wrote:
Hello Ms. Massey,
I am still unclear about the nature of your appeal.
You received a decision dated October 18, 2016 regarding your request for access to records pertaining to a January 21, 2016 closed Peel Regional Council meeting and confirmed that you received copies of the record when we spoke on December 1, 2016.
Are you now stating that:
1. You did not receive a response regarding your access request for a written transcript of the January 21, 2016 closed Peel Regional Council meeting; and/or
2. You did not receive the written transcript of the January 21, 2016 closed Peel Regional Council meeting;
Or are you appealing the portions of the transcripts that were severed due to third party interests and you believe you should have access to these portions of the records. If this is the case, it appears that this issue is being dealt with through mediation (see file MA16-615-2).
Your clarification is appreciated.
Regards,
Francesco Russo
Analyst
*********
From: Christine Massey [mailto:cmssyc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Francesco Russo <Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca>
Subject: Re: IPC File MA17-39 Dear Francesco,
IPC file MA16-615 is regarding my request for an audio recording.My letter to the IPC of January 2, 2016, attached, is regarding my separate request for a written transcript for which I did not receive an access decision, as indicated in my letter, attached.
Appeal under Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA)
for IPC Assistance re: FOI Request for Written Transcript of Illegally-Closed Meeting of Peel Regional Council, Held on January 21, 2016 …
The Region failed to formally acknowledge my request…
Best wishes,
Christine
*********
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:18 PM,
Francesco Russo <Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca> wrote:
Hello Ms. Massey,
I am the analyst assigned to the above file and I require some clarification regarding the nature of your appeal.
Is this appeal regarding the access request you made to the Region of Peel in which the Region provided a decision letter dated October 18, 2016 (IPC file MA16-615) or is this appeal regarding a new access request to the Region for which you did not receive an access decision?
If this appeal pertains to a new request, could you forward to me a copy of the request?
Thank you and regards,
Francesco Russo
Analyst Information and Privacy Commissioner/
Ontario2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400Toronto, ON M4W 1A8
Ph 416.326.0079 | Fax 416.325.9188 TF 1.800.387.0073 | TTY 416.325.7539E: Francesco.Russo@ipc.on.ca | Web http://www.ipc.on.ca