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

[Troy Bridgeman]

I feel a responsibility to clarify a few things given Mr. L's thinly veiled accusations about my motives.

Mr. L wrote …"Is it because you naturally mistrust the government and use any excuse to claim a conspiracy? …"

I have family and close friends who are police officers and emergency service workers. I also have friends and family that work in different levels of government.
They work hard to build trust with members of the public and the unfortunate result of all this secrecy is that it breeds public mistrust for police and other authorities.

As we saw in an article published in the Mercury earlier this month that featured police association president Matt Jotham , the delays and secrecy are not popular with many police. They have many of the same concerns expressed in the comments posted above.

My personal and professional concerns are that it risks creating unnecessary antagonism between police and the press. That atmosphere serves neither party.

[Jane]

Well, maybe in this particular case, the not publishing the real facts of the case of the McNally tragedy has to do with the fact that Mr. McNally was a firefighter. A sort of closing the ranks like other "institutions", e.g. the military, the police, firefighters, the medical profession, etc. Those organisations seem to keep most things under wraps successfully.

But what about the "ordinary" citizen - the Arboretum incident, and others like that. I believe the editor of the local paper employs common decency in not pursuing those details. Some cases just seem to disappear, never a followup. Which brings up an even more glaring question really.....Why bother to print anything at all in the first place?

I wonder if the term "right to know" even comes up in the newsroom.

It just seems to be the way of these matters in any community.

[stephen s]

So a question:

In lieu of demise of the Merc Print Edition...are the FOI's still pending? (From memory, there's a number not resolved)

The demise of the print edition is one huge loss for journalism, even if it is a fading venue, but surely not for the digital side of the Merc?

We still need you!