|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the "Act") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) of the Act a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 15, 1988, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the "institution") received a request for "...all documentation, reports, financial forecasts and recommendations relating to the closing of the Rideau Regional Centre at Smiths Falls... [and] all planning documents including cost estimates relating to the future care of patients who are presently at R.R.C. but will be displaced by the closing of this institution. 2. On March 31, 1988, the institution received a follow-up request for "...all documents, reports, studies and recommendations relating to the transfer of residents of Smiths Falls, now and in the future. I would like to receive all general documents relating to this issue for other similar institutions as well." 3. By letter dated June 7, 1988, the institution advised the requester that access would be granted to some but not all of the requested records. The requester was denied access to the following records for the reasons indicated: ("Record No. 1") 1. Wage Section of Project Opportunity - Reform of Employment Training and Sheltered Employment in Ontario - section 12.(1) (b), (c), (d), (e) as policy options, advice to Executive Council, the premature disclosure of which would reveal the substance of deliberations of Executive Council or its committees; - section 13.1 and 2 (i), (j) as recommendations of a public servant and not a final plan; and - section 18.1 (e), (f), (g) as positions or plans to be applied to any negotiations carried on, on behalf of an institution or the Government of Ontario; plans relating to the management of personnel; or information that, if prematurely disclosed, might result in undue financial benefit or loss to a person. ("Record No. 2") 2. 1987-88 Multi-year Plan Cabinet submission exempt under: - section 12.(1)(b), (c), (d), (e) as noted above. ("Record No. 3") 3. Revised and updated (February) proposals of the four regions which were submitted to head office for incorporation into Cabinet materials exempt under: - section 12.(1)(b), (c), (d), (e) as noted above; - section 13.(1) and (2), (i), (j), as recommendations of a public servant and not a final plan, and - section 18.(1) (e), (f), (g), as positions or plans to be applied to any negotiations carried on, on behalf of an institution or the Government of Ontario, plans relating to the management of personnel, or information that, if prematurely disclosed, might result in undue financial benefit or loss to a person. 3. By letter dated June 10, 1988, the requester appealed the decision of the head for the reason that "in the absence of said 'exempted' material my inquiry with respect to planning documents concerning the future care of patients presently residing at the Rideau Regional Centre cannot be adequately addressed." 4. The records in issue were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer. During the investigation/mediation stage of the appeal the appellant raised his concern that in taking 82 days to respond to his request without providing a written notice of time extension, the institution had not complied with subsection 27(2) of the Act . 5. On November 4, 1988, I sent notices to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head, and invited each of them to submit representations to me by November 25, 1988. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrases those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer or any of the parties to be relevant to the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. The Report is sent to all parties affected by the subject matter of the appeal. I have received representations from the institution, but, to date, I have not received representations from the appellant. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the Wage Section of Project Opportunity ("Record No. 1") falls within the scope of the discretionary exemption provided by subsection 13(1) of the Act , and if so, whether any of the exceptions outlined in subsection 13(2) apply. B. Whether the 1987-88 Multi-year Plan Cabinet submission ("Record No. 2") and the revised regional proposals ("Record No. 3") fall within the scope of the mandatory exemption provided by subsection 12(1) of the Act . C. If the answer to Issue "B" is in the affirmative, whether the head has properly exercised his discretion under subsection 12(2)(b) of the Act . D. Whether the severability requirements of subsection 10(2) of the Act apply to nay of the records in question. E. Whether there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of any exempt record in this appeal which clearly outweighs the purpose of that exemption, as provided by section 23 of the Act . F. Whether the institution properly applied the provisions of subsection 27(2) of the Act in extending the time limit for responding to the appellant's request. It should be noted at the outset that one of the purposes of the Act as set out in subsection l(a) is to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record o
|