IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

P-902

Document		P-902


File #		P_9400294, P-9400295, P-9400296, P_9400297, P_9400298


Institution/HIC		Ministry of Community and Social Services


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEALS: These are appeals under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The appellant submitted six requests to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the Ministry) for access to information related to the funding provided by the Ministry to the Grandview Survivors Support Group (the GSSG) and/or individual members of the group from its inception in late 1991 or early 1992 until December 31, 1993. In each request, the appellant listed a number of specific documents that he sought. The GSSG is a group composed of women who previously had been wards of the Grandview Training School for Girls. These women were involved in negotiations with the provincial government to receive compensation for incidents which occurred while they were detained at the home. The Ministry located records which were responsive to four of the requests, but did not release any of these documents to the appellant. In denying access to these records, the Ministry relied on the following exemptions contained in the Act : advice or recommendations - section 13(1) law enforcement - sections 14(1)(a) and (b) right to a fair trial - section 14(1)(f) economic and other interests - section 18(1)(e) proposed plans, policies or projects of an institution - section 18(1)(g) solicitor-client privilege - section 19 invasion of privacy - section 21 The appellant appealed the denial of access to the Commissioner's office. Appeals P-9400294, P-9400297, P-9400298 and P-9400299 were opened to address these issues. The Ministry indicated that no records existed which responded to the remaining two requests. These decisions were also appealed to the Commissioner's office which opened Appeals P-9400295 and P-9400296. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant, the Ministry and the GSSG. Representations were received from the Ministry only. The records at issue are described in Appendix "A" to this order. In certain cases, the record numbers are not sequential owing to the fact that the appellant clarified and narrowed the scope of his appeals during mediation. There are a large number of records at issue in Appeals P-9400294 and P-9400299. For ease of analysis, I have classified the records in each of these files according to the nature of the documents. For example, the groupings readily identify those documents that consist of correspondence to and from legal counsel. This classification is found in Appendix "B" and is based on my examination of the records themselves. The Ministry has claimed that each exemption applies to all the records. In addition, during my review of the records I formed the view that the Cabinet records exemption in section 12 of the Act might apply to some of the records. As this is a mandatory exemption, I will consider its application where appropriate. PRELIMINARY MATTER In its representations on the application of the law enforcement exemptions, the Ministry states that it: ... is not able to make more complete representations on this issue but can only proceed with the knowledge that release of the documents could affect the interests of a fair trial or any prosecutions, based upon the fact that there is an ongoing investigation. It may be appropriate to seek further submissions on this issue from the appropriate parties. With respect to the application of section 18(1)(g)(proposed plans of an institution), the Ministry indicates that: ... As the matter [of compensation packages] is being handled by the Attorney General, it may be appropriate to seek further submissions. As I understand these comments, the Ministry appears to be suggesting that perhaps the views of the Ministry of the Attorney General and other "appropriate parties", such as those conducting the ongoing investigations, should be sought with respect to the disclosure of these records. The procedural scheme established by the Act clearly contemplates that the government will speak with one voice with respect to requests for access to government records. The legislation contains various provisions which contemplate that the institution which receives the request may canvass other government institutions, if necessary. For example, when a request for access to a record is made, the institution which receives the request is required to determine whether or not the record requested falls within its custody or control (section 25 of the Act ). In the event that the institution to which the request is directed does not have custody or control, the request must then be transferred to the institution that does have custody or control of the record. Where an institution receives a request for access to a record and the institution considers that another institution has a greater interest in the record, then the request and, if necessary, the record may be transferred to the institution with the "greater interest in the record". In the circumstances where the record affects the interests of more than one institution, the Act expressly contemplates and allows for consultations between government institutions, including municipal institutions, before the institution with custody or control of the document makes an access decision. This consultation is facilitated by means of a time extension (section 27 of the Act ). These provisions are available to allow an institution to consider all viewpoints so that the institution can express the government's position as a whole. In this case, the Ministry received the requests on January 31, 1994. On March 2, 1994, it issued decision letters extending the time for a response for an additional 90 days until May 31, 1994. The time extension was claimed pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of consultations with a person outside the Ministry, which the Ministry has identified as the Ministry of the Attorney General. In fact, the actual decision letters were issued on May 4, 1994. Thus, in my view, the Ministry had the opportunity to seek the views of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the exemptions which should apply to the docume


Legislation		FIPPA 12(1) 14(1)(a) 14(1)(b) 14(1)(f) 18(1)(e) 18(1)(g) Section 19 13(1)


Subject Index		Representations re: FOI Appeal


Signed by		Anita Fineberg


Published		Apr 10, 1995


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu