|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1970
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-000267-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Management Board Secretariat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Attorney General, and Natural Resources (the Ministries) each received the same request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The appellant's request for access to records was made in the context of a named MPP's business interests in two named companies. The two named companies are business associates which are operating under a separate third business name. For the purpose of this Order, I refer to all three companies as "the affected party". The appellant specifically requested: … any and all records relating to the tendering and purchasing practices of your ministry concerning travel expenses, and also for any and all records relating to contracts or ongoing arrangements with an entity described as [the affected party] … or with one [the affected party] … and further, for any and all records relating to purchases from and amounts paid to these entities since June 8, 1995, and more particularly in the last 2 years, and still more particularly in the last year. In accordance with section 25, the Ministries forwarded the request to Management Board Secretariat (MBS) which has custody and control of the responsive records. MBS sought to clarify the appellant's request and confirmed that he was seeking records relating to any contract or other agreements that Management Board Secretariat has with the affected party. After further discussions with the appellant, MBS clarified the request to read: records relating to any contract or other agreements Management Board Secretariat has with [the affected party]; records relating to the Ministry's tendering and purchase practices for travel expenses; any purchases paid to these companies within the last two years prior to the date of your request MBS located nine responsive records, notified the affected party of the request and asked for its views. The affected party objected to the release of certain records. After reviewing the affected party's response, MBS advised the appellant it was granting full access to records 1, 4, 7 and 9, and partial access to records 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. In withholding information, MBS relied on the exemptions at section 17(1) (third party information) and 21(1) (personal information). The appellant appealed MBS' decision. During mediation of this appeal, two issues were resolved. The appellant agreed that he is not seeking access to the personal information of employees. Section 21 and the following pages, therefore, have been removed from the scope of the appeal: pages 97 - 105; the staff list at pages 116a and b of record 2; pages 31 to 40 of record 5; and the severed portions of pages 36 and 37 of record 8. In discussions with the Mediator, the appellant raised the issue of the existence of additional records. He subsequently advised that MBS provided him with a letter which adequately addressed his concern about additional records and reasonableness of search has been removed as an issue. At that time, the appellant also raised the possible application of the "public interest override" at section 23 of the Act, which has been added as an issue in this appeal. Further mediation was not possible and the matter proceeded to the adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to MBS, initially, soliciting its representations with respect to the exemptions claimed, and received a response. I then sent a copy of the Notice to the appellant along with MBS' complete representations. A copy of the Notice was also sent to the affected party. Both the appellant and the affected party submitted representations. RECORDS: There are five records at issue in this appeal, in full or in part. They are: Record 2 (Travel Management Proposal submitted, May 1994) Record 3 (Travel Agency Services Agreement with Management Board of Cabinet (MBC), November 1994) Record 5 (Travel Management Proposal, January 1996) Record 6 (Regional Travel Services Agreement with MBC, August 1996) Record 8 (Travel Management Proposal, January 1999) DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION General Principles Section 17(1) of the Act provides, in part: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, (a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; (b) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied; (c) result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; One of the principal purposes of the Act is to make transparent the workings of government. Section 17(1) exists in recognition of the fact that in the course of carrying out public responsibilities, governmental agencies often find themselves in possession of information about the activities of private businesses. In Order PO-1805, Senior Adjudicator David Goodis stated that this provision was designed to "protect the 'information assets' of businesses or other organizations which provide information to government institutions." For a record to qualify for exemption under section 17(1)(a), (b) or (c), the institution and/or the affected parties must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and the information must have been supplied to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Dora Nipp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 22, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|