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-952

Document		P-952


File #		P-9400777


Institution/HIC		Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the Ministry) received a request for access to all government files related to a named collection agency (the Agency). The Agency had been licensed by the Ministry pursuant to the Collection Agencies Act (the CAA ), but after an investigation had been conducted into its affairs, its licence was revoked and its accounts frozen. The request was made by a reporter who maintains that there is a public interest in the disclosure of the information he has requested. The Ministry identified numerous records as being responsive to the request, and granted partial access to them. The requester appealed this decision. During mediation, the appellant limited the scope of the appeal to exclude the personal information of any "third party" individuals or any identifying information of "third party" companies. It was agreed that "third party" individuals and companies would be defined as those individuals and companies that are not directly related to the Agency (i.e. as owners or related holding companies or members). Thus, any information contained in the records which refers to the Agency's clients or individuals or companies from which it tried to collect monies is not at issue in this appeal. I have highlighted this information in blue on the copies of the records provided to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator of the Ministry with this order. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the Ministry, the appellant and five individuals whose interests might be affected by some of the records at issue in this appeal (the affected parties). Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant, counsel representing two of the affected parties and their companies (counsel) and the president of the Agency (the President). The records at issue are described in Appendix A to this order. They were located in four Ministry files dealing with the Agency: (1) the Sentry System (SS); (2) the Business Affairs Branch (BAR); (3) the Legal Services Branch (LSB); and (4) the Investigation Branch (IB). In the Appendix, the records are categorized and numbered according to the system used by the Ministry. In this order, I will use the bracketed abbreviations to refer to the Ministry file source of each record I consider. PRELIMINARY MATTERS THE RAISING OF ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS LATE IN THE APPEALS PROCESS Upon receipt of the appeal, this office provided the Ministry with a Confirmation of Appeal notice. This notice indicated that the Ministry had 35 days from the date of the notice (until January 27, 1995) to raise any additional discretionary exemptions not claimed in the decision letter. No additional exemptions were raised during this period. Subsequently, in its representations dated April 21, 1995, the Ministry indicated for the first time that it wished to claim an additional discretionary exemption for one record originally identified in its decision letter. This record and the additional discretionary exemption now being claimed is Record IB24: section 14(2)(a). Previous orders issued by the Commissioner's office have held that the Commissioner or his delegate has the power to control the manner in which the inquiry process is undertaken. This includes the authority to set time limits for the receipt of representations and to limit the time frame during which an institution can raise new discretionary exemptions not originally cited in its decision letter. In Order P-658, I explained why the prompt identification of discretionary exemptions is necessary to maintain the integrity of the appeals process. I indicated that, unless the scope of the exemptions being claimed is known at an early stage in the proceedings, it will not be possible to effectively seek a mediated settlement of the appeal under section 51 of the Act . I also pointed out that, where a new discretionary exemption is raised after the Notice of Inquiry is issued, it will be necessary to re-notify all parties to an appeal to solicit additional representations on the applicability of the new exemption. The result is that the processing of the appeal will be further delayed. Finally, I made the point that, in many cases, the value of information which is the subject of an access request diminishes with time. In these situations, appellants are particularly prejudiced by delays arising from the late raising of new exemptions. The objective of the policy enacted by the Commissioner's office is to provide government organizations with a window of opportunity to raise new discretionary exemptions but not at a stage in the appeal where the integrity of the process is compromised or the interests of the appellant prejudiced. In this appeal, the Ministry did initially claim the exemption in question, but only for other records. In effect, the Ministry now seeks to extend the application of this exemption to include an additional record. The fact that the Ministry has previously applied an exemption to one category of records should not presumptively mean that it can later extend this provision to other documents. In my view, the 35-day policy applies to this situation. The Ministry was advised of the policy in question yet now wishes to apply the discretionary exemption cited above to the record indicated almost four months after the Confirmation of Appeal was issued. The Ministry has provided no explanation for the delay in claiming that section 14(2)(a) applies to Record IB24. In fact, in its submissions the Ministry does not even acknowledge that this is the first time that it is claiming the application of this exemption to this record. In my view, a departure from the 35-day timeframe is not justified in the circumstances of this appeal. Therefore, I will not consider the application of section 14(2)(a) to Record IB24. THE RECORDS AND THE EXEMPTIONS There are several records for which the Ministry has now withdrawn its reliance on various discretionary exemptions. In addition, the Ministry has provided no submissions on the application of the following discretionary exemptions to the follo


Legislation		FIPPA 14(1)(d) 14(2)(a) 17(1)(a), (b) & (c) Section 19 Section 23 13(1)


Subject Index		Collection Agencies Act via a search warrant


Signed by		Anita Fineberg


Published		Jul 13, 1995


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu