|
|
Document
|
|
P-1637
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: A request was made to the Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for the following records: A preliminary report prepared by [a named accounting firm] and delivered to the Ministry of Finance within the last year concerning the relationship between the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario (DICO) and the Ministry of Finance, or simply relating to the Ministry of Finance, and all correspondence, documents and other material relating thereto. In response to the request, the Ministry located a large number of records and granted partial access to them. The Ministry advised the requester that she would be required to pay a fee of $2,175.90 for copies of the records to which access was granted. The Ministry denied access to the remainder of the records pursuant to sections 14, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the Act . In its decision letter, the Ministry provided the requester with an Index of Records showing a chronological listing of the documents. The Index of Records showed that some records were denied as they did not fall within the scope of the request. The requester paid the fee to obtain the records to which access was granted and appealed the decision to deny access to certain specified records. During mediation, the requester (now the appellant) withdrew her appeal for Records C-065 (denied as being non responsive to the request), K-013 (denied under section 21); and the portion of C-076 to which section 21 had been applied. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the Ministry and 30 affected parties. Representations were received from the Ministry and seven affected parties, including DICO. In its representations, DICO indicates that it is relying on those provided by the Ministry. In its representations, the Ministry indicates that it is withdrawing its reliance on sections 18(1)(c), (d) and (g) of the Act . Consequently, the following exemptions are at issue in this appeal: law enforcement - section 14(1)(c); third party information - section 17(1); solicitor-client privilege - section 19; invasion of privacy - section 21. In addition, the appellant takes issue with the Ministry's decision that certain records are not responsive to the request. RECORDS: The records at issue in this appeal include a proposal submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFPs), correspondence, documents relating to the RFPs, Ministry records relating to DICO inspections and examinations, legal opinions and reports generated by DICO. The records at issue are described in the Index of Records which was provided to the appellant. Using the Ministry's numbering system, I have set out below the records at issue and the exemptions which have been applied to each one. Records not responsive to request C-218 and C-222 Section 19 A-166, A-149 and C-310 Section 14(1)(c) C-096, C-220 and K-014 Section 21 K-012 Section 17 C-057, C-076, C-097, C-2l9 and C-241, A-011, A-013, A-122, A-123, A-128, A-130, A-136, A-139, A-145, A-146, A-147, A-148, A-157 and A-171, K-006, K-012, K-031, K-032, K-036, K-039, K-051, K-056, K-057, K-063 and K-066. DISCUSSION: NON-RESPONSIVE RECORDS The Ministry indicates that Record C-218 contains a review of proposed new DICO bylaws, and that Record C-222 contains an outline of the proposed examination of DICO by the Superintendent of Deposit Institutions for 1996. The Ministry argues that these two records deal with operational issues between the Superintendent of Deposit Institutions and DICO rather than the Ministry/DICO study which is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, the Ministry submits that these two records are not responsive to the request. Previous orders of the Commissioner have established that in order to be responsive, a record must be "reasonably related" to the request: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents are relevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to a request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The record itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimately be identified as being responsive to the request. I am of the view that, in the context of freedom of information legislation, "relevancy" must mean "responsiveness". That is, by asking whether information is "relevant" to a request, one is really asking whether it is "responsive" to a request. While it is admittedly difficult to provide a precise definition of "relevancy" or "responsiveness", I believe that the term describes anything that is reasonably related to the request [Order P-880; see also Order P-1051]. In my view, the appellant was very clear in what she was seeking. She has identified that she is only interested in information pertaining to a particular preliminary report prepared by a named accounting firm and all correspondence, documents and other material which relate to this preliminary report. In my view, she is not seeking any and all information pertaining to the relationship between DICO and the Ministry. I have reviewed these two records in light of the request as worded. I find that, although they clearly relate to the relationship between DICO and the Ministry, they do not fall within the parameters of the request, which is, as I indicated, for all records relating to a specific preliminary report. Consequently, I find that these records are not "reasonably related to the request" and they are, therefore, not responsive to the request. Accordingly, I will not consider them further in this order. PERSONAL INFORMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined, in part, to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. The Ministry indicates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 28, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|