On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:01:29 -0400, John Dorsay <restimulator@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Dear Sir or Madam,
>>
>>Your request for information has been denied as there are lawful
>>exceptions that prevent us from providing access to the information
>>requested, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
>
>You are clearly entitled to a copy of the videotape. You are
>clearly entitled to any information Brewer or his agents have
>collected about you. You may or may not be entitled to information
>about who hired Brewer, but you are very likely entitled to the
>terms of the contract.
>
>>1. Personal information about another person might be revealed.
>
>Not applicable.
>
>>2. Commercially confidential information might be revealed.
>
>Not applicable.
>
>>3. Someone's life or security might be compromised.
>
>Not applicable.
>
>>4. The information was collected without consent for the purposes
>related
>>to an investigation of a breach or an agreement or contravention of
>a law
>>or other lawful exemption.
>
>Not applicable.
>
>>5. The information was generated during the course of a formal dispute
>>resolution process.
>
>Not applicable.
>
>>6. The information is protected by the Solicitor/Client privilege.
>
>Only if he is claiming to be a solicitor.
>
>>7. Solutions Security & Investigations is restricted from providing
>this
>>disclosure under Section 24 (1) of the Private Investigations and
>Security
>>Guards Act; R.S.O. 1990, c. P.25, s. 24.
>
>Absolutely irrelevant.
>
>24. No person shall divulge to anyone, except as is legally
>authorized or required, any information acquired by him or her as a
>private investigator. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.25, s. 24.
>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>David Brewer
>>Executive Director/Chief Privacy Officer
>>Toronto, Canada
Dear Mr. Brewer:
I spoke to the Records section of the Law Society of Upper Canada today. You may verify what they told me by calling 1-800-668-7380 and asking for Records.
The Records Section of Law Society of Upper Canada has informed me that you are not a solicitor. They also informed me that Solicitor/Client privilege applies only to asking questions of a solicitor about a client. Since you are not a solicitor, your reason for denying my request under #6 below is invalid.
In regard to the rest of your "reasons" for denying my request:
#1 You are expected to redact personal information about other people from the information you are required by law to provide me.
#2 You may redact confidential commercial information, though this is (to the best of my knowledge) not applicable.
#3 Is not applicable.
#4 Is not applicable.
#5 To the best of my knowledge I am not involved in any dispute resolution process.
#7 Section 24 reads, "No person shall divulge to anyone, except as is legally authorized or required, any information acquired by him or her as a private investigator. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.25, s. 24."
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act provides no exception to information collected by private investigators. Thus under SCHEDULE 1 (Section 5), 4.9 Principle 9 -- Individual Access
"Upon request, an individual shall be informed of the existence, use, and disclosure of his or her personal information and shall be given access to that information."
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-8.6/text.html
Thus I am "legally authorized" and you are required by Canadian law to disclose information you have collected about me such as the video tape Robert Del Bianco made of me on April 29, 2005. Failing to do so would violate the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act as cited above and Section 24 of the Private Investigations and Security Guards Act; R.S.O. 1990, which you cited.
Going a bit further, Section 25. (2) reads:
"Every private investigator shall, while investigating, carry the identification card issued to him or her under this Act and shall produce it for inspection at the request of any person. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.25, s. 25 (2); 1997, c. 39, s. 21 (2)."
Your agent, Robert Del Bianco, Ontario PI license number 058439, did not produce his identification card when I asked him during the confrontation on April 29, 2005. He also hit me with his rented vehicle in attempting to leave the scene, but that is another matter.
You might want to remind him of this legal requirement to present his identification card.
I am sure you are now aware that I have filed a complaint with the Privacy Commission in regard to this matter. I would prefer to deal directly with you and settle the matter of access to these materials. If your client is the obvious one, you were working directly or indirectly for an organization that has been convicted of "Breach of the Public Trust" in Canada.
I believe we can come to an amiable solution to providing me with the materials you are required by law to produce.
Sincerely,
Keith Henson
cc Privacy Commission (hard copy) posted
PS Did you have permission from King-Reed and Associates
www.king-reed.com/code_privacy.html
or Sterling Pacific Investigations
www.sterlingpacificinv.bc.ca/privacy.html
to quote their material?