  |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OBJECT OF THE LITIGATION January 20, 1999, the applicant addresses himself to the organization to obtain the detailed report of the checks which were made relating to it with the C.R.P.Q. since 1979. He specifies that he wants the date of the event, the reason, which body of police and the place. February 23, 1999, the organization calls upon article 28 of the law for him to refuse the access of them. March 8, 1999, the applicant claims Commission which it revises this decision of the organization. May 9, 2000, an audience is held in Sherbrooke. PROOF The person in charge for the access, Me Monique Gauthier, deposits the documents claimed by the applicant under confidential fold. She stresses that the request aims at obtaining the requests for information which were made by policemen to the file of the Center of police information of Quebec (indicated CRPQ hereafter). She affirms that there is not any more any other document in relation to the request. Mrs. Gauthier reports that the organization is a manager of system CRPQ and that it was impossible to recall documents before 1994, the capacity of the system is to store the information over one 5 years period. She makes share that the documents in litigation are the extraction of the newspaper of the transactions of the CRPQ and that the Commission already decided that the newspaper of the transactions profits from the restriction of article 28 of the law (1) and, in this file, of paragraphs 2, 3 and 6.
Mrs. Gauthier explains that the majority of the bodies of police have a data-processing link with the CRPQ and each body of police can feed it or to question it in accordance with article 39.1 of Law of font (2) She adds that article 61 of the law makes it possible a body of police to communicate to another body of police without the assent of the person concerned. Law of font
Law on the access
Mrs. Gauthier affirms that it is impossible to control or to know the reasons which encouraged the police officers to question the CRPQ. It attests that the communication of the documents in litigation would make it possible to the applicant to know the service of font which questioned the CRPQ by decoding the number of the agency but would not allow therefore to know the reason of the consultation. She makes the point that the step of the police officer with the CRPQ can relate to a checking of routine or a criminal act. She specifies that the Police chief with the police deontology requires, on the occasion, within the framework of its functions this newspaper of the transactions of the CRPQ. She repeats that the document in litigation does not make it possible to connect the consultation to an event in particular and that this search would require organization which it produces a new document within the meaning of article 15 of the law.
The organization presents a Ex proof leaves according to article 20 of the rules of evidence of the Commission.
The Commission reports that Mrs. Gauthier and Mr. Yvan Bilodeau, sergeant with the Safety of Quebec, reviewed the information in litigation and puts forward the reasons to restrict the access of them. The applicant deposits a document entitled " Invitation of compassion for an investigation in order to build a better country ". He pleads to want to obtain the documents in litigation to restore the truth and to avoid confusion because, he believes, there was crossing of identity with a person born the same day as him. APPRECIATION I examined the documents in litigation and it acts of the newspaper of the transactions. The Commission already decided that these last documents required by the applicant profit from the restriction of article 28 of the law (4) and because they are truffles codes which make inapplicable article 14 of the law.
FOR THESE REASONS The Commission REFUSES the application of revision. Montreal, September 6, 2000 Michel Laporte
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
