FOI Review Recommends MJPS Provide Records, Do A Better Job To Assist Applicant In Historic Death Case
Information and privacy commissioner recommends a Line By Line Review Of 191 Page File - other portions released to Applicant
Simply because part of a record is exempt does not mean the entire record is off limits to being released the Moose Jaw Police Service (MJPS) has learnt in a recent ruling from the Saskatchewan Office Of The Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).
In an October 26th report OIPC Commissioner Ronald J. Kruzeniski, K.C made a series of recommendations to the MJPS regarding a Local Access Freedom Of Information (LA FOIP) request after the applicant requested a review of the MJPS’s responses.
Kruzeniski recommended the MJPS provide a better response to the Applicant as to the reasons why they had withheld certain records.
Additionally the MJPS was recommended to review the entirety of a 191 page file and provide a line by line review of the documents and properly show what exemption was being applied and why.
The portions of the documents not exempted could then be released to the Applicant.
The MJPS was also recommended to provide a better explanation to the applicant as to why and what exemptions records were being withheld under.
The initial LA FOIP request was asking for the files from a 1992 - 1993 investigation and review the MJPS had conducted into the applicant’s mother’s sudden passing in June of 1986. (See Backgrounder below)
Additionally Kruzeniski recommended the MJPS release some of the records it previously withheld and respond with more fuller reasons under section 7 of the LA FOIP Act.
Section 7 of the LA FOIP Act deals with the government institutions’ responsibility to respond to Applicants and the requirement to provide clear reasonings when access to records is denied.
Story Continues After Backgrounder Below
BACKGROUNDER - Files Involve 1986 Sudden Passing Of Yvonne Wendzina
Although the OIPC does not release the identities of people who request reviews of FOI applications MJ Independent has learnt the applicant was Peggy Wendzina and she was seeking the MJPS’s files on her mother Yvonne’s passing on June 27, 1986.
Specifically the files in relation to a 1992 - 1993 review of the evidence in her mother’s 1986 sudden passing.
Yvonne Wendzina’s death - she was found deceased in a bathtub full of hot water - and aftermath was highly controversial.
The death was initially ruled a suicide by then local coroner the late Mel Stern and later the cause of death was changed officially to as unknown.
Due to Stern, who attended the scene, immediately ruling the death a suicide the MJPS at that time did not collect any evidence nor did they take any photographs of the scene.
Later Yvonne’s children would attend the scene and find what they thought to be evidence they believed pointed to a different cause of death.
The evidence the children found they believed pointed to foul play but was discounted by the MJPS investigator at the time and subsequently thrown into the garbage.
Stern would later rule a coroner’s inquest was not necessary given the fact Wendzina’s body had been cremated and little was left from the autopsy which would shed more light on what happened.
Almost seven years after Yvonne’s death her children were then able to convince then MJPS Chief of Police the late Merv Schenk to re-open the probe into their mother’s death but it failed to provide sufficient answers and closure to the family’s many questions.
In an interview conducted over three years ago (2019) family member Peggy Wendzina told MJ Independent she, and other family members, were under the impression for decades their mother’s death was still an open and active MJPS file. They were shocked to find the MJPS had purged the files of the death about a decade earlier.
She said the family based their belief the case was still open on an August 1, 1992 published report in the now defunct Moose Jaw Times-Herald.
In that article Moose Jaw Times-Herald Staff Writer Lesley Sheppard wrote two Wendzina family members and the MJPS considered the case open at that time.
“Neither Wendzina nor Agar consider the case closed. But then neither do the police,” Sheppard wrote, adding that then Chief of Police Merv Schenk stated the file was “an unexplained sudden death. The file isn’t closed.”
The August 1, 1992 article where then Chief of Police the late Merv Schenk stated the case was not closed
Wendzina claimed in a 2019 interview she and other family members had just learnt the MJPS files of her mother’s death had been purged and an active investigation discontinued when the MJPS upgraded their records system about a decade earlier.
Wendzina further claimed the MJPS had never formally notified the family about disposing of the original records and effectively closing the case on her mother’s sudden passing.
In the interview conducted over three year’s ago by MJ Independent Peggy Wendzina said she and other family members were still seeking the final answer about how her mother died.
She said not telling the Wendzina family the truth about the investigation’s status - destroying the files when the MJPS moved to computerized record keeping about a decade ago - had been a cruel and shattering experience for her and other Wendzina family members.
Wendzina said she believed the MJPS not conducting a proper investigation and shoddy police work may have allowed any potential foul play in Yvonne’s sudden passing to be missed.
To this day - despite a recent review by the Chief Coroner of Saskatchewan - what exactly caused Yvonne Wendzina’s death is still unknown.
The same report also states foul play is not indicated in the review of the original autopsy but additionally there was not enough the sleep medication Halcyon in Yvonne Wendzina’s body to be lethal.
An overdose of the sleep medication Halcyon was cited as the initial cause of death being suicide.
The 1992 MJPS review of Yvonne Wendzina’s death made headlines outside Moose Jaw - here the review is mentioned in a Calgary Herald story
Asked for further comment regarding the October 2022 OIPC report Wendzina politely declined further comment.
She stated the family was in the process of seeking legal counsel and the potential of legal action against the MJPS.
Asked over three years ago in an interview if the quest to find out the truth in her mother’s death was futile Peggy Wendzina responded with a series of questions.
“What would you do Robert if it was someone you loved Robert? What would you do if this happened to your mother? Would you ever stop looking for the truth?” she asked.
She also stated she felt the MJPS had been giving her and other family members the “run around” and “not responding truthfully to our questions” over the (30 plus) years.
OIPC Report
At issue were records totaling 207 pages in length the MJPS had in its files.
The MJPS released some of the records but a total of 191 pages were not provided to the Applicant with no exemption provided as to the reason why.
In their response to the OIPC reveiew the MJPS argued the 191 pages came from another “government institution” and as such they were not MJPS records. The request should have been to the Saskatchewan Coroner’s Office as that office had a greater interest and were the originator of the 191 page record.
Although the MJPS may have argued correctly regarding these records the legislation allows such a request to be made within 15 days of the LA FOIP request. The MJPS did not transfer the LA FOIP request within the required 15 days making their argument moot, the report stated.
The MJPS also tried to use other sections within the governing legislation during the OIPC review process prior to going back to the greater interest argument that the request should go to Saskatchewan Coroner’s Office.
The OIPC report found the MJPS failed to inform the Applicant but only brought these issues up during the actual review with the OIPC.
Under the Act the agency handling the LA FOIP must make reasonable effort to provide the information as well as explain to the Applicant the reasonings for withholding information.
As such - despite the MJPS saying they were not their records - OIPC Commissioner Kruzeniski recommended the MJPS perform a line by line review of the 191 pages and apply exemptions where necessary because they are in possession of the records.
“MJPS has possession of these records. In order to withhold these records in full or in part, MJPS must claim an exemption to the information being withheld. Therefore, MJPS must conduct a line-by-line review of the 191 pages to determine if exemptions apply,” the report recommended.
“MJPS did not respond completely as it fully withheld the 191 pages for no reason that is provided for under LA FOIP. Because of this, MJPS did not meet its duty to assist,” the report additionally stated.
Absurdity Argument Not Swallowed
Part of the record withheld included conversations an investigating officer had with the Applicant.
Notes the MJPS failed to provide in part or their entirety as part of the LA FOIP request.
In the report the issue or argument of absurdity came into play as the MJPS declined to release the notes an officer took of a conversation they had with the applicant.
“…the Applicant would have knowledge of these conversations as the Applicant was part of it. It would be an absurd result to withhold these notes from the Applicant,” the report stated.
Section of the report looking into the absurdity of withholding notes of a conversation the Applicant was part of.
The recommendation was to release the relevant records to the Applicant.
Findings And Recommendations
The OIPC made several findings and recommendations as part of the report.
The recommendations included the MJPS:
release portions of a record previously denied access to the Applicant while other non-relevant sections could be withheld.
the MJPS conduct a line by line review of a record totaling 191 pages and indicate what sections cannot be released and explain fully why they cannot be released.
provide a clearer response as to why records were severed as “no substantive”.
Both the Applicant and MJPS have 30 days to appeal the October 26, 2022 OIPC findings to the Court of King’s Bench for review.
Read the full report by clicking here.