Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has granted a grieving father in Sudbury access to more information about his son’s 2023 fatal drug overdose on compassionate grounds.
While the father hoped additional information would prompt police to reopen its investigation into the case, the commission said it was granting access primarily in hopes that the father would find closure.
“This appeal considers a father’s right of access to details surrounding his son’s death from a suspected drug overdose that he believes might assist him in having the police investigation reopened,” said the decision dated March 10 of this year.
The father sought access to the police investigation into the death, all supplementary reports, photographs taken at the scene and witness statements from the two people who were with his son at the time of his death.
The Greater Sudbury Police Services Board granted partial access but said privacy laws prevented them from releasing all the information the father wanted.
The father appealed that decision, and mediation resolved many issues. What remained in dispute was the father’s request to access a two-page summary of the police investigation and a four-page sudden death report.
Contained personal details
The police argued the records contained personal details about the deceased and the two other people, information that legislation required them to keep private.
“The police provided detailed representations as to the type of personal information found on each page of the records,” the decision said.
That information included their gender, race, date of birth, past involvement with police and the statements they made to police.
“It is clear that the records at issue are police reports created in the course of a law enforcement investigation into the death of the appellant’s son,” the commission said.
“As the records were clearly compiled by the police in the course of their investigation into whether the appellant’s son’s death was a result of a possible violation of law, I find that the presumption against disclosure … applies in this appeal.”
That meant the information could not be disclosed unless there was a compelling public interest or “the disclosure is desirable for compassionate reasons” and releasing the information would not be “an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.”
The father told the commission he didn’t believe the investigation into his son’s death followed police protocols and procedures.
“The appellant submits that as the father of the deceased, he should be granted access to both the occurrence report and the sudden death report, in their entirety, to allow him to make the case for the police to reopen the investigation,” the decision said.
“He also submits that he seeks access to the withheld information to ensure that in their investigation, the police treated his son with dignity and respect.”
In response, Sudbury police said that aside from personal information such as genders and personal addresses, the only information they have withheld is “descriptions of the affected persons’ personal feelings, the appellant’s son’s medical information and the appellant’s son’s past involvement with other identifiable individuals.”
Includes statements to police
None of the withheld information addresses the father’s concerns about the investigation or other issues he raises, police said.
“Included in the information withheld by the police is information that relates to the appellant’s son’s background, statements made to the police by the affected persons about the appellant’s son’s history and certain observations made by the police at the scene where the appellant’s son’s body was located,” the commission said in its decision.
The commission ruled that the father should receive more details from the two reports to give him “a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding his son’s death and assist him in his grieving process.”
However, the father was denied access to information about the other two people present when his son died, including “their names, ages, genders, addresses, relationship status, and personal identifying numbers.”
Read the full decision here.
