FOI request for Eden Mills fire report declined

Posted by Phil Andrews

The Mercury tried to obtain the report of the Ontario Fire Marshal's office into a probe of a Nov. 20 fire in Eden Mills. It submitted a request for the document under the province's access to information legislation. The request was denied this month.

The fire was at a home where a husband and wife died that day. The two were in their 40s.

The public has never been informed of the nature of the deaths or what caused the fire. It has not even been provided with a damage estimate connected to the fire.

The incident was the subject of considerable conjecture in the community. The citizens who died were somewhat prominent. One was a firefighter. The other was a staffer in a Hamilton law firm.

The lead rationale cited for withholding the report:

"The ministry may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonable be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter;"

and

"The ministry may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime;"

Given that the OPP has said no criminal charges are going to arise from this matter, it's frustrating that the report is being kept out of the public realm. A far more appropriate response to the FOI request would have been to provide the requested document, with the information that the ministry deems exempt excised from the report.

The communications surrounding this case have raised several questions in the community and they will likely continue to do so.

We're likely to appeal the decision to reject the FOI request

 

 

 

Comments

[stephen s]

I recollect a terse release a few weeks back (reference not handy, will provide if challenged) stating words to the effect of: "There will be no more information released on this case".

Holy Moly! Is it an MI5 matter? Martians? Firefighters turning into zombies from breathing toxic fumes?

When the facts do come out, they'd better be some really revealing ones to justify this dance. I believe even the Coroner's Report has been held back. Someone's treading a fine line on this one, it almost appears that illegalities are being committed in the name of the Law.

[Troy Bridgeman]

"The truth is out there." That is an X-File reference for anyone that doesn't remember the series. Maybe we need Mulder and Scully to get on the case.

[stephen s]

The "X-Files", Troy, are on their way back:

[ The X-Files / 18 Jan 2016
The X-Files' Return is This Week's TV Highlight]

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/01/18/the-x-files-return-is-this-weeks-tv-highlight

[stephen s]

Back on a serious note:
[ The Ontario Provincial Police said Monday that a criminal investigation into the deaths of an Eden Mills couple and the fire at their home on Nov. 21 is closed and no further information will be released.

Wellington OPP Const. Marylou Schwindt said that post-mortem results would also not be divulged out of respect for the grieving families. ][...]
http://www.theifp.ca/news-story/6163160-opp-investigation-into-fatal-eden-mills-fire-closed/

"post-mortem results would also not be divulged out of respect for the grieving families".

OK, that was dated Dec 7. How long does that remain a valid reason?

For some reason, authorities are closing rank around this. Rightly or wrongly, I could see this happening for a Police Chief (cops are infamous for closing ranks, they have the levers), but a *fireman*?

Someone's going to crack this story at some point, and probably before the FOI request is fulfilled.

[Troy Bridgeman]

All joking aside. This is a tragic story and reporters know what happened. They have more than government sources providing credible information. That is to say, the Ontario Fire Marshal's office is wrong to believe it has a monopoly on the facts in this case. Withholding information from journalists so they can't report the facts to the public is, in my opinion, an abuse of power and does little to build trust and confidence in the process. The Mercury shouldn't have to file a Freedom of Information request to get this kind of information.
I hope the Mercury appeals the decision and continues to pressure the OFM to cooperate.

[Martha]

People close to the couple know what happened. The general public doesn't need to know the gory details, and the media doesn't need to report on it further. If the families have requested privacy, then that should be respected. There is no threat to the general public, there will be no court case, there are only two grieving families and their friends and acquaintances left to deal with the events of that day.

[Troy Bridgeman]

I respectfully disagree Martha. The public does have a right to know the results of an investigation carried out by the Ontario Fire Marshal's office. That is a legal right. The OFM is exercising its power to delay making the results public but can't keep it secret indefinitely.
No one is asking for "gory details", just the facts of the case.
The family has a right to privacy but not the right to secrecy - not when two people end up dead under mysterious circumstances.
The facts will become a part of the public record eventually and I see no legal reason for delaying that eventuality.
There are far too many unanswered questions related to this case for any respectable news service to ignore.

[Jane]

So from the things that were said and what wasn't said, I would assume this was a murder/suicide.

[gord]

Everything that is criminal, seems to be a big secret lately. Is a fireman or a cop negligent in this case. There is still no disclosure in the famous HOSPITAL KILLING at the Guelph General Hospital. Cover ups --maybe.

[stephen s]

Absolutely agreed with Troy.

Martha writes:
[The general public doesn't need to know the gory details]

And who, exactly, gets to choose that and why? What you espouse is censorship of information. Do we need to know the awful details of the Nazi death camps? How about the atrocities ISIS is committing?

Are you *incapable* of dealing with the truth, Martha? Then speak for yourself. There's a reason the truth is there for people to view, and when it's deemed not in the public's interest, then let a court rule on that, by the terms of our Constitution, not some jumped-up self anointed bureaucrat.

[stephen s]

Jane writes:
[So from the things that were said and what wasn't said, I would assume this was a murder/suicide. ]

And therein lies the point of hiding the truth. It *lends itself* to all manner of supposition, in the long run, doing far more harm than good for the public.

So we pay people to find things out for us as a society, and then they deem us not fit to know it?

By refusing to divulge details *required by law* (e.g: death certificates and cause of death) an illegality is being committed.

How much more of this is going on that we don't know about? Martha sure wouldn't know, and that seems to suit her.

[stephen s]

A large complication just struck me re this:
[And therein lies the point of hiding the truth. It *lends itself* to all manner of supposition, in the long run, doing far more harm than good for the public.]

Let's take a step back, and discuss insurance claims. Since we're not being told what occurred, then how about the insurance company? Are they being blocked from the details too? That would be illegal, criminal in fact.

Suicide means a drastic change in any insurance pay-out. So is that what this is all about? Comrades covering for those complicit in this tragedy so as to not stymie a large payout for what happened?

Treat the Public with disdain, and this kind of conjecture, rightly so, becomes rampant. For good reason. I leave it at that for now...

[Martha]

No, I know what happened in this case. It's not hard to find the information. Not much shocks me anymore, and I'm perfectly capable of handling gory details. Thanks for assuming that I would rather live with my head in the sand, but that insinuation couldn't be further from the truth.

I would imagine that the report will be made available to the relevant people: insurance, family, police, etc. I don't think there is a big cover-up. I just don't see the need for media to press the issue.

[stephen s]

[I would imagine that the report will be made available to the relevant people: insurance, family, police, etc. I don't think there is a big cover-up. I just don't see the need for media to press the issue.]
Really? Then what legal basis allows insurance companies to know, but the Public doesn't even when applying for an FOI?

Keep posting Martha. You make it worse every time you do. You have no concept of the legality of the situation.

Was it murder-suicide? Then what's so special in that being withheld? Just like the affair in Erin, it might reduce local property values? Because you're all so special?

[Jane]

It would seem that in "mental health" issues or family trauma of any kind, details are kept under wraps. The two people who tragically died that day had separate funerals in different cities. Each family took care of their own. The woman in the situation seemed to be an upbeat, happy, vibrant person. I think the husband had dark demons he was dealing with. More and more family issues that involve mental health issues are suppressed. I would suppose, since no-one actually comes out and says so, that this is to give families privacy and "save face" in the community. Someone's psychological and mental health problems - addictions, etc., are obviously not for public eyes. Very sad for the families. They had no children, so the insurance question is moot - unless they had made parents their beneficiaries. If they had wills, a lawyer would have to help the family sort that out under the unusual circumstances. A most unpleasant family undertaking. I would suppose that, loosely speaking, there is a cover-up of some sort. Some families would be so ashamed to have the world know about their failings like that.

[stephen s]

Trying to access the last link in the string surmise heading. Either there's a server glitch at the Merc, or a DNS misdirestion, or the link has been purposely corrupted...so I had to access Google Cache to read the editorial:
[...][ The police service says this communications decision has been made to seek to avoid victimizing further the friends and family of the McNallys.

Given the abundant speculation about the nature of this incident and the OPP long-terming it as a criminal investigation, the police communications decision comes off as a possibly political one as well.

When that annual report comes out, if it leads to the public discovering that a major crime has been secreted by the police service, that should give rise to wider scrutiny of the OPP's management of this case. That's particularly so if the nature of the incident is of the sort that our society has strongly indicated must be clearly identified and confronted by the wider community. ]

Indeed. This grows ever more curious the more I dig.

[stephen s]

Jane writes:
[ A most unpleasant family undertaking. I would suppose that, loosely speaking, there is a cover-up of some sort. Some families would be so ashamed to have the world know about their failings like that.]

Given what we know, that's a sensible surmise. But the question remains: Who gets to select what the Public has a right to know, and with what authority?

I spent a good half an hour last night going through the legislation (Ont Coroner's Act and others) to find out what the public has a right to know. Frustratingly, I could find nothing definitive.

I'll delve further this evening. For those well-connected, it appears the Law is made up for them at will.

[stephen s]

I'm going to play what I've found so far backwards.

Martha wrote (In reply to my query on insurance, which, btw, *cannot* be dismissed purely on conjecture. I highly suspect there were a number of policies involved (not the least from being a firefighter)

From the Coroner's Act:

[...]
Record of Investigations 18. (4)Every coroner shall keep a record of the cases reported in which an inquest has been determined to be unnecessary, showing for each case the coroner’s findings of facts to determine the answers to the questions set out insubsection 31(1), and such findings, including the relevant findings of the post mortem examination and of any other examinations or analyses ofthe body carried out, shall be available to the spouse, parents, children, brothers and sisters of the deceased and to his or her personal representative,upon request.Coroners Act R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.18(4);2009, c.15,s.10.]
[...]

My question remains:

Are the insurers informed? And if not, is that because no claim has been pursued?

The secrecy game can be played by all sides. Questions mount....

[stephen s]

Whoops, Martha's post:
[I would imagine that the report will be made available to the relevant people: insurance, family, police, etc. ]

"Imagine" appears to be correct. It appears some are making it up as they go along in the name of defending privacy.

[Jane]

The media in cities such as ours, is very protective of families involved in traumatic circumstances - especially suicides and murder/suicides. It must just be the code of ethics they apply in these cases - especially if they are not issued with a gag order.

We had the case of the elderly gentleman who was charged in the death of his wife in the Arboretum Village last year. Again, not much was printed about that. But also again, from what was said, and what was not said, we can infer that the gentleman suffers from dementia. There will probably never be much of a follow-up on that either. Another horrible family trauma.

The editor of the newspaper must also have a huge part to play in content divulged - it doesn't just come from the police and the courts. The military operates in a seemingly secretive way amongst themselves too. Closed ranks and all that.

It's amazing though, from little snippets stated here and there how a scenario can be expounded upon without having too many concrete facts. I guess that's not really right either, but that's the way it plays out when the absolute truth is withheld.

[Tony L]

A lot of people are talking about the "public's right to know". I am not going to argue about what the public has a right to know because I don't have the legal answers to that (and neither do you stephen s no matter how much you copy and paste).

But I have a question for all of you on here (Troy, stephen s and others) complaining that you don't have all the information: Why do YOU care so much? Were you friends or family of the people involved? It doesn't appear so. Is it because you are the type of people who love to gossip and this another juicy tidbit? Is it because you naturally mistrust the government and use any excuse to claim a conspiracy.

Or is it that you don't have lives of you own, and therefore have to involve yourselves in the lives of others to make yourself feel important.

Reporters at least have a reason as it is their job, what's your excuse.

Have a nice day.

[stephen s]

Tony writes:
[because I don't have the legal answers to that (and neither do you stephen s no matter how much you copy and paste).]
That's exactly why I quoted the relevant legal text, Tony.

If you have something to mollify or add credence to that, by all means do so.

[Troy Bridgeman]

Mr. L, I have made it a personal policy not to engage with angry trolls who contribute nothing constructive and do little more than deflect and distract from the conversation. If your question about me and my motives is genuine and not purely rhetorical you can easily Google me using the name I attach to these posts. Since you are so fond of hurling insults and making assumptions about other's motives and their right to express their opinion on this blog you might consider identifying yourself like a legitimate, accountable adult. I will be happy to engage you on those terms i.e.: consider your opinions and answer any reasonable questions you might have about mine.

[Jane]

I'm not complaining that all the pertinent information surrounding this unfortunate situation has not been divulged. I just wanted to state my views as to why this may be so.

When all the facts of a "mysterious" death are not put forth, it's a fact of life that many people will play detective and try and figure out what happened. That's just human nature. And, by not having the true facts published, then people can't help but conjecture.

That's probably how rumours are instigated and kept going and elaborated on.

The ultimate goal in these sad occurrences is to protect families and honour their privacy in times of great distress.

Do we have a "right" to know ? I'm not sure.

[stephen s]

Jane writes:
[Do we have a "right" to know ? I'm not sure.]

In the absence in Ontario of definitive legislation on the matter, we can invert the argument by asking:
"Do 'they' have the right not to publish the facts?"

Evidently not. It's a choice made by the OPP and from what I posted in the parallel string to this, not other police forces in Ontario. And the OPP can't cite any legislation to support their position other than "it's always been that way".

The Public has a problem with that, as do the Courts, especially the Supreme Court and the legislation creating their mandate.

If the Merc does pursue the FOI request (and the gory details aren't what anyone is after, it's just the basic tenets of the Public's right to know) the OPP will have to provide something substantial to the court to prevent the release of information.

I would suggest that a number of news sources (not just Metroland) join that request. It's not just this specific case, it's the unaccountable 'we do as we want' attitude of the OPP that must be clarified.

Again, invert the logic: Why would a regime deny the Public the right to know cause of death? Since a number of posters have stated (re my raising the insurance issue) 'there are no offspring to receive a settlement'....then who exactly are these 'affected family members' if there's no-one to lay claim to the estate?

The 'logic' is circular.

It comes down to (from what scant facts have been published) persons of influence in the community having a special rote to have their reputations protected, even after an event shocking to the community has happened.

How convenient....why don't we all have that right? Your husband gets charged with sexual molestation or worse. The OPP use your being embarrassed as an excuse not to release those details.

Think about it...