|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2384
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-040184-1 and PA-040194-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Natural Resources
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Natural Resources (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) regarding a contract for helicopter services between the Ministry and an identified company (the affected party). The requester seeks access to a copy of the contract, any correspondence in reference to establishing this contract, a log or record of all hours flown by each helicopter, the amount of flying hours billed by each helicopter and the amount of payments forwarded for modifications of each helicopter. The requester also wants to know the location from which the helicopters were operated and maintained, who was responsible for the maintenance and whether the maintenance was included in the overall contract or if it was billed separately. If the billable hours were billed with a copy from the helicopter’s aircraft log, the requester also seeks access to this documentation. The Ministry identified records that were responsive to the request and wrote to the affected party under section 28 of the Act , requesting their views on the disclosure of this information. The affected party responded and requested that no information be released. Notwithstanding the objection of the affected party, the Ministry decided to grant partial access to some of the responsive records. It denied access to the remaining records, in whole or in part, pursuant to sections 17(1) (third party information), 14(1)(l) (law enforcement) and 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Act . The requester filed an appeal (appeal PA-040184-1) from the Ministry’s decision to withhold part of the records. The affected party filed an appeal (appeal PA-040194-1) from the Ministry’s decision to release any information at all to the requester. The affected party relies on section 17(1) of the Act in support of its position that access to the records should be denied in full. It also asserts that the motivation for the request is suspect because there is ongoing litigation between the affected party and the appellant. At the mediation of appeal number PA-040184-1, the Ministry specifically identified that it relies on the exemptions set out in sections 14(1)(l), 17(1) and 21(1)(f) in conjunction with 21(2)(e), 21(2)(f), 21(2)(h) and 21(3)(f) as grounds for denying access. Mediation did not resolve the appeals and they moved to the adjudication stage. To reduce duplication, because appeal number PA-040184-1 relates to the Ministry’s decision to release a portion of the records which contain information relating to the affected party, and appeal number PA-040194-1 arose from the affected party’s position that none of the information in the very same records should be released, they were dealt with in one Notice of Inquiry. Taken together these two appeals encompass all of the responsive records. As the same records are at issue in both appeals and similar tests under the Act apply, it made sense to address them at the same time, and I will dispose of both appeals in this order. The Notice of Inquiry, setting out the issues raised in the appeals was sent to the Ministry and the affected party, initially. Both provided representations in response. A copy of the Notice of Inquiry, portions of the Ministry’s representations and summarized portions of the affected party’s representations were then forwarded to the appellant, who also provided representations in response. As the appellant’s representations raised issues to which I determined that the Ministry and affected party should be given an opportunity to reply, I sent a letter accompanied by the representations to be addressed, to the Ministry and affected party inviting their reply representations. Both the Ministry and affected party filed reply representations. PRELIMINARY MATTER The representations that the Ministry filed request that access to credit card numbers and the addresses of helicopter pilots be denied under section 14(1)(l) and 21(1) of the Act , respectively, and the representations of the affected party asserted that there is not a business entity in Canada that is authorized to distribute or release credit card numbers, addresses or personal information to unrelated third parties. In its representations, the requester stated that the credit card numbers and addresses could be blocked out. I treat this as a direction to this office that access is no longer sought to that information , and it is not necessary for me to make any determination on the applicability of sections 14(1)(l) or 21(1) to that information. The credit card numbers and addresses of helicopter pilots will be severed from any records that may be ordered disclosed. Although the Ministry took no issue with it, the affected party also asserts that the names of the pilots and engineers and their “production/performance” should also be withheld. The affected party does not specify the applicable section(s) of the Act that it seeks to rely on in support of this assertion, simply stating that the release of the information would be in breach of the Act and the Charter . I will therefore assume that the affected party is seeking to invoke the application of section 21(1) of the Act , which is a mandatory exemption. I will address the affected party’s position regarding the Charter at the end of this decision. I do not agree that the information should be withheld. In my opinion the names of the pilots and engineers appear on the documentation in their professional, not personal capacity. As this is the case, I find that their names are not personal information and can not be exempt under section 21(1) [Orders P-257, P-427, P-1412, P-1621, R-980015, MO-1550-F, PO-2225]. As a result, their names will be disclosed. Therefore, only the application of the section 17(1) exemption remains at issue in the appeals. RECORDS: The records at issue in the appeals consist of the following: Record 1 - The affected party’s tender bid dated February 22, 2002, with attachments. Record 2 - Finalized Contract dated April 17, 2002. Record 3 - Letter to affected party dated February 21, 2003 exercising option to renew the contract for the 2003 fire season, with attachments. Record 4 - Invoices from the affected party regarding navigation system installation. Record 5 - Letter to affected party extending agreement to September 5, 2003. Record 6 - Aircraft Wantlist Price Inquiries and Waivers of Quotations and attached documents with date marked May 7, 2003. Record 7 - MNR Daily Flight Reports from May 6, 2003 to September 16, 2003. Record 8 - Expense receipts for taxi, airport charges, accommodation and hotel charges and adjustments. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION General Principles Sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act read as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, (a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; (b) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institut
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Steve Faughnan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 19, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|