|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-168
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890287
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 as amended (the " Act ") which gives a person who made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) the right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make Orders under the Act . The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 27, 1989, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the "institution") seeking access to: A- The following (requested) document is described on page 8 of the 1986-87 Annual Report of the C.C.R. Minister. " Lotteries : A three member task force reviewed social gaming in the province during the year and reported its findings to the Minister" B- I request a copy of that report, please. 2. On June 21, 1989, the acting Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") for the institution wrote to the requester advising that access to the requested record was refused pursuant to subsections 12(1)(b), (e), (f), 13(1), 13(2)(j) and 18(1) of the Act . 3. The requester appealed the institution's decision, and notice of the appeal was given to the appellant and the institution. 4. The record at issue, which is a 206 page report prepared by the Lotteries Branch Task Force entitled "Lotteries Task Force Report", was obtained and examined by the Appeals Officer. Efforts were made by the Appeals Officer to mediate a settlement of the appeal. 5. During the course of mediation, the appellant indicated to the Appeals Officer that he was only interested in information in the report which dealt with Nevada tickets and more specifically, their use by charitable organizations for fund raising. Nevada tickets are break-open, instant-win type lottery tickets. The appellant was interested in knowing what plans the government had for the ongoing use of these tickets for fund raising. The appellant also wanted to know if in the course of preparing the report the authors had obtained demographic information about the purchasers of Nevada tickets. 6. After reviewing the record and with the consent of the institution, the Appeals Officer was able to confirm to the appellant that the report in question did not contain any demographic information of the type he was seeking. Thereupon, the appellant agreed to narrow his request to information regarding Nevada tickets and the plans of the government regarding these tickets and their use by charitable organizations for fund raising. Accordingly, the record at issue in this appeal can be described as those portions of the "Lotteries Task Force Report" which contain information regarding Nevada tickets and the plans of the government regarding these tickets and their use by charitable organizations for fund raising. 7. By letter dated December 18, 1989, the institution informed the Appeals Officer that it was relying solely on subsections 12(1)(c) and 13(1) of the Act to deny access to the record. 8. Because the institution maintained its position with respect to the application of subsections 12(1)(c) and 13(1), a mediated settlement was not possible. 9. Notice that an inquiry was being conducted was given to the institution and the appellant by letter dated January 18, 1990. Enclosed with the Notice of Inquiry 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 paraphrase 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, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. 10. Written representations were received from the institution. In its representations, the institution indicated that it was now relying solely on subsection 13(1) of the Act to exempt the record. The appellant chose to rely on the representations made in his letter of appeal. 11. I have considered all representations in making my Order. The sole issue arising in this appeal is whether the requested record falls within the discretionary exemption provided by subsection 13(1) of the Act , and, if so, whether any of the exceptions listed in subsection 13(2) apply to require the head to disclose the record or parts thereof. In considering the specific issue arising in this appeal, I have been mindful that one of the purposes of the Act , as set out in subsection 1(a), is to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions. The provision of this right is 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 a record or a part thereof, falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act , rests with the institution. Subsection 13(1) of the Act reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. The "Lotteries Task Force Report" was prepared by three employees of the institution and completed on July 1, 1986. The introduction to the report states that the mandate of the task force was to: ...conduct an in-depth study of the lottery licencing system in the Province; to investigate and research the practical aspects of charitable fund raising and to report their findings on problems, abuses, current regulations and licencing practices, or any other factors that directly or indirectly affected the functions of charitable organizations authorized to operate under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada Section 190, and Order-in-Council No. 274/70. The institution was asked on a number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
13(2)
-
13(2)(j)
-
28(1)
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 24, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|