|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-800
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400410
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The requester asked the Ministry of Citizenship (the Ministry) to receive access to records relating to the decision to make monetary grants to a named organization (the organization). These grants were awarded under the Ministry's Anti-Racism Operational Funding Program (the AROFP). In particular, the requester sought access to (1) copies of all proposals submitted by the organization and (2) details of those grants provided to the organization after June 1993. The Ministry identified a total of 27 records that were responsive to the request and disclosed 18 of these documents to the requester in their entirety. The Ministry denied access to the remaining nine records in their entirety based on the following exemptions contained in the Act : third party information - section 17(1) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the requester/appellant indicated that she did not wish to receive the personal information of individuals who were referred to in the records. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the parties to the appeal. These included the organization and four community groups which had provided letters of reference in support of the organization's applications. Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant, the organization and one community group. This group consented to the release of its reference letter. This document, which the Ministry has categorized as Record 9d, should be disclosed to the appellant. In her representations, the appellant also took the position that there exists a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records under section 23 of the Act . A general description of the eight records which remain at issue in this appeal is contained in Appendix "A" which is attached to this order. I have retained the document numbering scheme used by the Ministry. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY As indicated previously, the appellant has indicated that she does not wish to receive any personal information contained in the records which relates to other individuals. This information (which I have highlighted in yellow on the copy of the records to be provided to the Ministry's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator) appears on page 1 of Record 1, page 1 of Record 6, page 31 of Record 7, page 1 of Record 9a and pages 1 and 6 of Record 15. The excerpts in question must not be released to the appellant. THIRD PARTY INFORMATION The Ministry and the organization claim that sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act apply to each of the eight records at issue. For a document to qualify for exemption under these provisions, the Ministry and/or the organization must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and 3. the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms specified in sections 17(1)(a), (b) or (c) will occur. I will first consider the third part of the test and then go on to consider the first and the second components. Part Three of the Test To satisfy this component of the test, the Ministry and/or the organization must describe a set of facts or circumstances that would lead to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms described in section 17(1) will occur if the information contained in the records is released. The evidence which is presented to establish this connection must be clear and convincing. In its representations, the organization submits that the approaches outlined in its proposals could be appropriated by other individuals or groups. It then argues that this information could be used by these third parties to the detriment of the organization in the competition for scarce public funding. In the context of section 17(1) of the Act , the argument is that the release of this information would cause undue loss to the organization. I have carefully reflected on this submission. My conclusion, however, is that the organization has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that this result will likely occur if the information in question is released. Next, the organization advances an argument under section 17(1)(b) of the Act . It submits that the groups or individuals whose views or letters of reference are contained in the proposals provided this information with an expectation of confidentiality. The organization further submits that, if such information is subject to public disclosure, these parties would be reluctant to share similar observations with the organization or the Ministry in the future. While I appreciate the organization's concern, I find that it has not provided me with any concrete evidence to establish that this scenario will likely occur. On this basis, I do not accept the argument which has been put forward. In Order P-777, I observed that organizations which apply for grants under the AROFP must provide the Ministry with detailed information about their funding sources. I also pointed out that the release of this type of information is not necessary to scrutinize the grants program and that its disclosure could significantly damage a group's competitive position under section 17(1)(a) of the Act . In this appeal, the analogous information appears on several pages in Records 1, 7 and 15. I have carefully reviewed the contents of these pages in light of the approach adopted in Order P-777. I find that the release of information respecting the funding sources of the organization (with the exception of grants obtained from the provincial and municipal governments) is not necessary to scrutinize the operation of the AROFP. I also believe that the disclosure of this information would significantly interfere with the organization's ability to secure comparable funding in the future under section 17(1)(a) of the Act . This information (which I have highlighted in blue on the copy of the records to be provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 23, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|