7(1)(d)(ii)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(d)(ii)

Section 7(1)(d)(ii) applies when disclosure of records would interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings. The decisions treat it as a narrow justification that depends on a pending investigation or enforcement action at the time of the request, not on a general interest in confidentiality or future proceedings.

The PAC has upheld withholding where the public body showed that release would interfere with that pending activity, such as portions of audit manuals, surveillance and body-camera footage, and files tied to an ongoing investigation. It has found violations where the body relied on conclusory assertions without showing interference, such as for a police report and for a letter about workplace harassment allegations, and has required disclosure of reasonably segregable non-exempt portions with appropriate redactions.

At a glance: 8 documents from 2013(1 binding opinion, 7 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings) (5); 7(1)(b) (Private information) (4); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (2); 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing) (2); 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant) (2).

Recurring issues

• Whether police reports and video or body-camera footage may be withheld because disclosure would interfere with pending law enforcement activity. (A police report, Police video of a hit-and-run incident, Police body-camera footage of a search warrant execution)
• Whether internal guidance such as audit manual sections may be withheld when disclosure would interfere with enforcement methods. (Internal audit manual sections for tax enforcement)
• Whether correspondence about workplace harassment allegations qualifies as part of administrative enforcement proceedings. (A letter about workplace harassment allegations)
• Whether a public body may withhold an entire investigative file or must release non-exempt portions in redacted form. (Records on environmental and zoning violations at a freight site, Police reports on a fatal motor vehicle accident)

Practical points

• Explain with specific facts how disclosure at the time of the request would interfere with the pending enforcement activity rather than stating a general concern.
• Review investigative records for reasonably segregable non-exempt portions that can be released with redactions for exempt information.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.