The Region is Overdue on FOI #I23-16-317: Audio Recording of Illegally Closed-to-Public Fluoridation Council Meeting
—
From: Christine Massey
Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM
Subject: overdue FOI #I23-16-317: fluoridation meeting audio recording
To: “Jurrius, Stephanie”
Dear Ms. Jurrius,
Today I spoke with a gentleman from the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office, and he confirmed for me that:
1) the IPC encourages institutions to release immediately, upon initial request, any records that don’t contain personal information;
2) even records that do contain personal information where the person involved doesn’t mind having them released should have been released to me back on November 17th, which was the final deadline for this whole process;
3) only one presenter has objected to their “personal” information (which was already shared in front of roughly 50 strangers) being released.
Hence, please let me know when you will be sending me these long-overdue and urgently-needed sections of the audio recording that represent the vast majority of the illegally closed meeting.
Please send them to me via the Internet as per my request from the beginning.
Also, I await my refund for the $25 IPC appeal fee.
Best wishes,
Christine
—
From: Christine Massey
Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: overdue FOI #I23-16-317: fluoridation meeting audio recording
To: “Jurrius, Stephanie” “ZZG-Regionalclerk@peelregion.ca”
Dear Ms. Jurrius and Ms. Lockyer,
It is my understanding from a gentleman from the Information and
Privacy Commissioner’s office that:
the Region plans to willfully further violate MFIPPA by only releasing
to me some of the records to which I am legally entitled and which the
Region is already long overdue in providing; and
the Region plans to disregard my repeated request for the files to be
conveyed to me via the Internet (in order to save time and money) and
send them via the mail on or before December 2nd instead;
Please send all of the responsive records that do not contain
non-consenting third party information to me immediately, via the
Internet in a commonly used format such as MP4 (as per my initial
request, of which I have repeatedly reminded Staff).
Also, kindly refrain in the future from falsely labeling records as
“Released in Full” when they in fact have not been released. I have
received 2 letters from the Region regarding FOI request #I23-16-317
(one dated September 19th, 2016 and one that was misleadingly dated
October 18th, 2016 but was only delivered to me 3 hours after my
regular mail was delivered by Canada Post 5 days after the deadline of
October 19th).
Best wishes,
Christine
—
From: Christine Massey
Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:01 PM
Subject: another MFIPPA violation: failure to reply to FOI request for written transcript
To: “Jurrius, Stephanie, “ZZG-Regionalclerk@peelregion.ca”
Dear Ms. Jurrius and Ms. Lockyer,
Further to my earlier email, I hope that you intend to also send me, immediately, via the Internet, the written transcript of the Jan. 21, 2016 illegally closed fluoridation meeting, which I requested on October 3, 2016 under MFIPPA.
To date, I have never received a letter or any form of reply to this request, aside from an email from Ms. Jurrius stating “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.”
FOI Request I23-16-317 is my request for the audio file, hence Ms. Jurrius’s email did not address my new request for the written transcript. I emailed Staff on October 20th about my new request and again was provided information about FOI Request I23-16-317 rather than about my new request.
Section 19 of MFIPPA states that
“Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 18, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 20, 21 and 45, within thirty days after the request is received,
(a) give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether or not access to the record or a part of it will be given; and
Hence, we have another violation of MFIPPA, and I will be forced once again to appeal to the IPC and the Region will pay any related costs, unless you send me the written transcript no later than 3pm on Tuesday November 28th.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
—
From: Christine Massey
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:38 AM
Subject: request that IPC appeal fees be reimbursed (re: illegally closed fluoridation meeting)
To: “ZZG-Regionalclerk@peelregion.ca >, “Ghandour, Victoria”
Dear Ms. Lockyer and Ms. Ghandour,
In reply to your letter to me of November 29th, 2016, and regarding my earlier request made to you for a “refund” of the IPC appeal fee of $25 that I was forced to pay in an effort to obtain records that Staff was long overdue in providing to me:
I request that the Region “reimburse” me for the IPC appeal fee relating to FOI request #I23-16-317.
Further, noting that:
I have still not received any audio recordings from you, and this is a clear violation of MFIPPA, and the IPC has already discussed this with you,
in the partial written transcript that I received from you yesterday, every single word from pro-fluoridation “experts” Dr. David Juurlink and Dr. Myron Allukian had been redacted, and I do not believe that all of these redactions are in accordance with MFIPPA…
…I also request that the Region “reimburse” me for any future IPC appeal fees that I must pay in my ongoing effort, on behalf of myself and other illegally drugged residents, to obtain all audio recordings and written transcripts of Council’s illegally closed January meeting to which the public is legally entitled.
I also request that the Region “reimburse” all requesters for any future IPC appeal fees relating to the illegally closed fluoridation meeting.
Please let me know whether you will make decisions on these requests or present them to Council.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
—
From: Christine Massey
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Region of Peel File I23-16-317 (IPC File MA16-615)
To: “Jurrius, Stephanie”
Dear Ms. Jurrius,
Various viagra without prescription usa forms of learning disabilities are known to affect students from all across the globe. Therefore, life, health, and destiny of the individual depend upon generic viagra discount understanding the situation and insistent and persistent actions to prevent deteriorations’. Alternative online viagra medication containing Sildenafil Citrate typically lasts between 4 to 5 hours from the time of uptake. Limit yourself to One Kamagra a Day Consuming more than one time can be harmful so right away seek help from your respective doctor to avoid any mild or moderate side buy viagra without prescription then you ought to buy them through a website.
Further to my earlier email:
Yesterday I was at the Region’s offices and visited the Regional Clerk’s counter. I politely inquired as to why Staff had still not provided me with any audio recordings, given that you could have released the non-private, consented sections to me months ago and the final November deadline was long past.
I spoke with a woman named Noor Allibhai, who I found rather hostile and who I felt was trying her very best to confuse and intimidate me and get me to leave without accomplishing anything. However, in the end she agreed to have you email me to address my legitimate question.
I still don’t understand why you have not provided me with any audio recordings, as per my original, separate request of August 9, 2016.
I feel I am entitled to an answer – perhaps not legally entitled under MFIPPA, but in the interests of legitimate, transparent governance.
It’s disturbing enough that Residents were illegally prevented from attending the January meeting. We should not now have to go through so much difficulty in attempting to obtain both the audio and written records when there is no legitimate reason for you to withhold them from the public.
Christine
https://fluoridefreepeel.ca/
—
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Christine Massey wrote:
Dear Ms. Jurrius,
Having reviewed the letters and emails listed above, and to the best of my recollection, I do not believe that Staff has ever informed me, until now, that Staff intended to process both the audio and the written transcript requests under one access request, or even stated that Staff has intended to provide me with the any sections of the written transcript in response to my request for the audio recording.
Given the extreme determination that the Region has displayed since January 2016 to keep residents in the dark regarding the illegally closed January fluoridation meeting, including Staff’s failure to provide me with sections of the meeting that 1) do not contain any personal information and 2) were falsely labelled ‘Released in Full’ in Ms. Ghandour’s letter of September 19th, in any format whatsoever – on October 3rd, 2016, I submitted a second, separate formal request under MFIPPA for the written transcript in order to be certain that I would be entitled to receive both the audio recordings and the written transcript.
I already explained this in an email to the Regional Clerk on September 23rd, 2016, prior to making my formal request under MFIPPA for the written transcript on October 3rd, 2016 (see below, and I will forward you the entire email of September 23rd, if you wish).
Since I submitted 2 separate formal requests under MFIPPA and was never advised to the contrary, in my mind they have remained 2 separate requests, one of which the Region entirely failed to acknowledge within 30 days with a letter as required under MFIPPA. If combining such requests is standard procedure, I cannot imagine why you would expect Residents to know such a thing since most of us are not experts, or even experienced, in making FOI requests.
Regarding your statement “As for your questions regarding the decision making…”, I have asked you and your colleagues many questions regarding FOI requests in recent months, most of which have gone unanswered, and I prefer not to guess which questions you refer to. Please clarify this for me.
Also, once again, I request that Staff prepare corrected letters of September 19th and October 18th, for the public record and the Region’s records, that make clear that no records had been released, either in part or in full, to me. The average person would be entirely mislead by the “Released in Full” labels that Staff has used.
Good Morning Kathryn,
My earlier request was for the audio recording, not the written transcript. I now want to ensure that I will also receive the written transcript. Before I proceed any further, I have some questions…”
Email to the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office
Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPC Matter MA16-615
To: Francesco Russo
I believe I see an error in your summary of the Region’s October 18th letter (explained in bold below), and a few other troubling issues.
In September, Staff cited 10 (1) (b) for approximately 62 sections of the audio recording that I formally requested under MFIPPA on August 9th, 2016, and 38 (b) for 2 of those sections and for 1 additional section where they had not cited 10 (1) (b). Many sections were labelled ‘Withheld in Full’. No records were provided.
In the October letter, Staff relied entirely on privacy, 14 (1) of the Act, which they cited for only 12 sections of the recording. They indicated that all but those 12 sections were “Released in Full”, even though nothing was released (I still had no access to any records). They made no reference to the “interests” of third parties and had ceased citing 10 (1) (b) and 38 (b).
In Staff’s November 29th letter, Staff reverted back to citing 10 (1) (b), and they cited it for approximately 44 sections of the transcript, the majority of which they had already misleadingly labelled “Released in Full” in their October letter. They also started citing 10 (1) (c) for the very first time (which to me appears to be an admission that the free flow of information could result in serious legal consequences for the Region).
It is troubling to see your letter worded in such a way as to imply that I had received access to any records in October and that I troubled the IPC unnecessarily, and leaving out the fact that the Regionentirely missed their November 17th deadline for providing sections of the audio recording and could have released to me many sections of the audio recording long before that but simply chose not to, and leaving out the fact that Staff continually changed their claims as to which sections of the Act apply to the various sections of the meeting.
As I explained to you on the phone, Staff’s letter dated “October 18th, 2016″ was delivered to me in the afternoon of October 24th, after I had already mailed off my appeal to the IPC. It was delivered 3 hours after my regular mail was delivered by Canada Post and, interestingly, within 30 minutes after I had emailed Staff requesting that my $25 appeal fee paid to the IPC be reimbursed. All other letters from the Region have arrived at my home within 1 or 2 days of the date typed on them. Further, I had emailed Staff on October 20th about the deadline and received no reply until the afternoon of the 24th after I had emailed the Clerk asking for a reimbursement and within minutes of receiving the letter dated “October 18th“. So I did not make my appeal “despite” Staff’s letter labelled “October 18th, 2016″ but because the Region had in fact failed to provide me access to the requested records or even contact me as of October 24th (after my regular mail had been delivered), 5 days after their deadline had passed.
When you and I spoke on the phone, we agreed that the Region had 1) missed their November deadline, 2) had failed to provide anything at all in the requested audio format, 3) had cited sections of MFIPPA that are not applicable (in my opinion), 4) could have provided me with some sections of the audio recording months ago and the Commissioner would have been encouraged them to do so, and, that there is a significant public interest aspect to my appeal.
I may or may not have explained to you on the phone that on October 3rd I submitted to the Region a separate formal request under MFIPPA for the written transcript of the January meeting in order to ensure that I would be entitled to both the audio and the written transcript. The Region failed to ever respond to this second request with a written letter as required under MFIPPA. I include for you, further below, emails that I sent to Ms. Jurrius yesterday that discusses this issue and how I explained to the Regional Clerk back in September that I intended to make 2 separate formal requests.
No Staff Member ever advised me that there was a problem with submitting 2 separate requests. No Staff Member ever advised me until yesterday that the Region had decided to combine both of my formal requests made under MFIPPA into one request, or has ever gave me any choice in the matter. I have no idea whether this is another violation of MFIPPA. I would greatly prefer that the 2 separate requests are treated as 2 separate requests, especially since it was only yesterday that Staff indicated to me any intention of combining them. I quite possibly would have made different decisions along the way if I had known of this intention.
What are my options at this point for dealing with the separate formal request for the written transcript? May I now submit a separate appeal for it? The illegally closed-out and drugged residents have been kept in the dark since January and we now deserve immediate access, in any and all formats of our choice, to these important records.
As you know, the Region only provided me partial access to the written transcript for the very first time in late November. They did this by mailing me a heavily redacted written transcript on November 29th in which every single word from 2 of their 3 pro-fluoridation “experts” was blacked out. I have still received no audio whatsoever.
I have already spent an inordinate amount of time and energy since August in attempting to obtain records that the Region has no legitimate reason for withholding from the public, and I am not the only Resident struggling to obtain records from that meeting. The Public has also been prevented from accessing the presentations that were made by so-called ‘experts’ that endorse toxic waste in tap water as ‘free dental care for the poor’.
Thank you for all your help, Francesco. I look forward to moving on to mediation regarding the audio request and will submit my appeal soon. I will be providing a thorough history of this entire fiasco along with supporting documentation showing all the relevant emails and letters.
Christine