|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1540
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9700147
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: The appellant is a "tri-local" committee of three Canadian Union of Public Employee locals who are currently working together as a result of their common labour negotiation issues. On December 4, 1996, the appellant submitted a request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The request was for access to records for the following information related to Ministry approved service plans for agencies funded by the Ministry: The most recent approved service plan and supporting documentation for four identified agencies. The most recent by-laws of the four identified agencies. Copies of the 1996 correspondence which relates to the funding of the four identified agencies. Copies of any internal correspondence dated from September 1st, 1996, including inter-office memoranda, housebook notes, briefing notes and correspondence between the respective area offices and the developmental services branch where the above identified agencies are named but excluding any correspondence from or to the organizations and the Ministry. The Ministry granted partial access to records responsive to this request. The appellant appealed this decision with respect to parts 3 and 4 of the request and Appeal Number P-9700046 was opened. In Order P-1464, I addressed the issues arising in that appeal, which include in part, whether section 65(6) applies to some of the records and the application of sections 17(1) and 21(1) to portions of the records. In Order P-1464, I found that section 65(6) had no application in the circumstances of that appeal. I found that information pertaining to salaries of employees was exempt under section 21(1) as the disclosure of this information would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of personal privacy under section 21(3)(f) (information which describes an individual's income). The appellant indicated that it was not interested in receiving information about clients or their families. Accordingly, as I found that a number of records contained this information, they were outside the scope of the request. With respect to the exemption in section 17(1), I found that information pertaining primarily to discussions regarding the agencies' approaches to dealing with the management of their employees during a labour dispute, which contain contingency plans and strategies to be employed by the agencies in their dealings with their employees during and as a result of the dispute, qualifies as labour relations information. I found that the records had been supplied to the Ministry in confidence and that the disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to interfere significantly with the labour negotiations between the affected parties and the respective unions representing their employees. As all three parts of the test were met for these records, I found them to be exempt under section 17(1). NATURE OF THE APPEAL: In March, 1997, the appellant made a second request under the Act to the Ministry. The request was for access to records containing the following information related to Ministry approved service plans for agencies funded by the Ministry: Copies of any correspondence from December 1, 1996 to the present concerning the funding of three named organizations. Copies of any internal correspondence dated from December 1st, 1996, to the present including inter-office memoranda, house book notes, briefing notes and correspondence between the Ottawa Area Office and the Developmental Services Branch naming any of three named organizations. Essentially, this request is a continuation of parts 3 and 4 of the request for information submitted by the appellant in December 1996; the only difference being the time frame. The Ministry identified 78 records as being responsive to the current request and granted partial access to them. The Ministry denied access in whole or in part to a number of records pursuant to sections 21(1) (invasion of privacy) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act . The Ministry charged the appellant a fee of $74 dollars for the processing of this request. The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to the records, as well as the fee charged by the Ministry. The appellant also indicated that additional records should exist. During mediation it was discovered that this request was being interpreted differently than the previous request. The Ministry was asked to explain the difference. The Ministry replied that it was "prepared at this time to consider additional records that may be on record with the Area Office, and may be responsive to this request, in line with the approach held in similarly worded requests." The appellant has indicated that it is not interested in any personal information that would identify a client. Originally a fee of $208 was requested by the Ministry. This fee was reduced to $74, then increased to $147.40 and then again reduced to $96.20. This is, ultimately, the amount at issue in this appeal. The $96.20 consists of fees charged for 181 pages of photocopies at 20 cents each ($36.20) and 2 hours search time at $30 per hour ($60). Upon the payment of the $96.20 fee, 42 pages of records were released to the appellant. Cheques were sent in payment of the fees by the appellant, but have not been cashed or returned by the Ministry. Subsequent to the Ministry notifying the three organizations (the affected parties) referred to in the request under section 28(1) of the Act , a new decision letter was issued indicating that the exemptions contained in sections 17(1)(a) and (b) were now being claimed. The decision letter further indicated that access was being denied on the basis that, pursuant to section 65(6) of the Act , certain identified records are removed from the ambit of the Act . The Ministry removed its claim for section 19 on Record 50. Therefore, section 19 is no longer at issue in this appeal. Portions of Record 50 remain at issue, however, as they
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a)
-
21(2)(f)
-
29(1)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 05, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|