|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-426
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9200630, P-9200632 and P-9200636
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Community and Social Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) received three separate requests for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the files of three job competitions conducted by the Ministry. The requester was a candidate in all of the competitions. The Ministry issued three decision letters, and for each request, the Ministry provided copies of the questions, together with the requester's answers and ratings, but denied access to information pertaining to the other candidates under section 21(1) of the Act . The Ministry also denied access to "answers to questions used in the interview as well as other acceptable answers to the written test" (the correct answers) pursuant to sections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Act . The requester appealed the Ministry's refusal to provide the correct answers in all of the three job competitions. Separate appeal files were opened for each decision; however, because all three files involve a request for the same type of information, by the same person and from the same Ministry, this order will dispose of the issues raised in all three appeals. Mediation was not possible and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decisions of the Ministry was sent to the appellant and the Ministry. Written representations were received only from the Ministry. The records at issue in these appeals are rating materials containing the correct answers for oral and written questions in relation to the following three job competitions: Special Agreements Officer- #TAO-15/92; Income Maintenance Program Review Officer- #Temp 6/92, and Parental Support Worker- #Temp 5/92. ISSUES: A. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 18(1)(f) of the Act applies. B. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 18(1)(g) of the Act applies. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 18(1)(f) of the Act applies. Section 18(1)(f) of the Act reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record that contains, plans relating to the management of personnel or the administration of an institution that have not yet been put into operation or made public [Emphasis added] In Order P-229, Commissioner Tom Wright established the following test with respect to section 18(1)(f): In order to qualify for exemption under subsection 18(1)(f) of the Act , the institution must establish that a record satisfies each element of a three part test: 1. the record must contain a plan or plans, and 2. the plan or plans must relate to: i) the management of personnel or ii) the administration of an institution, and 3. the plan or plans must not yet have been put into operation or made public. I will consider part three of the test first. In responding to this part of the test, the Ministry states in its representations: The Ministry hiring plan in so far as it is comprised of interview questions and answers is not made public as it again is clear that to do so would result in a biased and unfair interview process. It is in the interests of fairness that interviews are standardized by using the same questions so that the best qualified applicant may be objectively hired for the position. The end result is both benefit to the applicant and to the Ministry. When a candidate is interviewed for a job, responses to interview questions play a large role in his or her success. If a candidate has access to interview questions prior to the interview, while his or her evaluation is based upon those answers, it is difficult to determine whether the candidate is qualified for the position. This is not only unfair to the other candidates, but more importantly, it defeats the purpose of the interview, being to select the most qualified person for the job in an objective manner, based upon the merits of each candidate. The Ministry also argues: While it has been suggested that a number of sets of questions be drawn up for these positions, this is difficult to do in practice. Interview questions for income maintenance officers are usually fact situations which would be responded to by application of the Family Benefits Act. The answer to the situation might be arrived at by applying a formula for determining eligibility; even though the names and dollar amounts might change, the application of the formula would be the same, and would be used for a variety of fact situations. The appellant's requests are for the correct answers relating to the job competitions in which she was a candidate. The records which have been identified by the Ministry as being responsive to the requests contain the correct answers which had already been used to evaluate the responses of the candidates in those job competitions. The Ministry does not dispute that the correct answers were used in the past. Its position appears to be that the correct answers are likely to be used again in future similar competitions, and that their disclosure could have adverse consequences to the job competition process and candidates in future job competitions. In my view, section 18(1)(f) is designed to protect "plans" that have not yet been put into operation or "plans" that have not yet been made public; irrespective of the consequences of their disclosure. The section is concerned with the nature and status of the record, rather than the consequences of its disclosure. Therefore, in my opinion, a "plan" that has already been put into operation cannot qualify for exemption under section 18(1)(f), unless it is shown that it will be made public in the future. As indicated above, the correct answers at issue in this appeal have already been put into operation, and the Ministry has not given me any reason to believe that it intends to make them public. Therefore, even if I were prepared to accept that the records contain "plans" which relate to the management of personnel or the administration of the Ministry, I am not satisfied that the "plans" have not yet been put into operation, or that they will be made public. Based on my review of the records and the Ministry's representations, it is my view that the
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Asfaw Seife
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 02, 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|