|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-56
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880157
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 , (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On January 5, 1988, a request was made to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the "institution") for the "...file regarding the Church of Scientology's application for the right to solemnize marriages". By letter dated February 22, 1988, the appellant clarified his request and indicated that he was ". . . not interested in (private personal information) at this time but rather any ministerial or inter-ministerial memoranda, letters or other documents with regard to the Church of Scientology's above-mentioned application". 2. On May 20, 1988, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator for the institution (the "Co-ordinator") wrote to the requester and enclosed copies of those records to which access was granted. However, access to certain records was denied, as follows: Twenty-two records are denied under section 19 of the FOI Act, as being subject to solicitor client privilege or prepared in contemplation of litigation. One of these records is also denied under section 13, as advice to government, and one is also denied under section 15 (information provided in confidence by another government). These records are ministerial letters, memos and notes. Two records are denied under section 12 as records prepared for or reflecting consultation among Crown Ministers relating to the formulation of government policy. One record is denied under section 13, as advice of a public servant. Access to a file which contains correspondence between the government of Ontario and the governments of other provinces and territories is denied under section 15 of the FOI Act, as disclosure would be prejudicial to the conduct of Ontario's intergovernmental relations, and would reveal information received in confidence from the governments. 3. On May 24, 1988, the requester appealed the institution's decision to provide only partial access to the requested records. Notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant. 4. The Appeals Officer assigned to this case obtained and reviewed the records in question. Efforts to mediate a settlement were unsuccessful, as the parties retained their respective positions. 5. On August 31, 1988, notice that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head was sent to the institution and the appellant. 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 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 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. 6. By letter dated September 13, 1988, I invited the parties to make written representations on the issues arising in the appeal. 7. The representations received by the institution indicated a partial change in position from the time access was originally denied. In certain instances new exemptions were claimed, and in two cases the institution indicated a willingness to release the records. After receiving the institution's representations, I notified the appellant and invited him to make further representations on the new exemptions raised by the institution. 8. I have considered all representations received from the parties in making my Order. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted at the outset. Subsection 1(a) provides the 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. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . The subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether any of the requested records fall within the scope of the mandatory exemption provided by section 12 of the Act . B. Whether any of the requested records fall within the scope of the discretionary exemption provided by section 13 of the Act . C. Whether any of the requested records fall within the scope of the discretionary exemption provided by section 15 of the Act . D. Whether any of the requested records fall within the scope of the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act . E. If any of Issues A, B, C and D are decided in the affirmative, whether any of the records can reasonably be severed, under subsection 10(2) of the Act , without disclosing the information that falls under an exemption. The records at issue in this appeal consist of 25 specific documents, together with a series of letters received from various provincial and territorial governments on the subject of the Church of Scientology's right to solemnize marriages in these jurisdictions. The proper treatment of each of the 25 records is discussed under one or more of Issues A through D, and the series of letters is addressed under Issues B and C. I have attached an appendix to my Order which summarizes the disposition of each record at issue in this appeal. ISSUE A : Whether any of the requested records fall within the scope of the mandatory exemption provided by section 12 of the Act . Subsection 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
12(1)
-
12(1)(d)
-
12(1)(e)
-
54(2)
-
54(3)
-
Section 15
-
Section 19
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 03, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|