|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-131
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeals 890159 and 890160
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Ministry of Financial Institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R These appeals were 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 record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of these cases and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On January 24, 1989, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Financial Institutions and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (the "institutions") requesting access to the "Log/list/record on Ministry issue sheets 1988-1989." 2. On March 24, 1989, the Acting Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") for both institutions wrote to the requester advising that: we have extended the time limit set out in section 26 of the Act by 45 days to April 14, 1989. This extension is necessary because of the large number of records which must be reviewed for your request in order to complete consultations which are required to comply with your request. The requester did not appeal these time extensions. 3. By letter dated May 10, 1989, the Co-ordinator wrote to the requester on behalf of both institutions, denying access to the requested record pursuant to subsection 12(1)(e) of the Act . 4. On May 22, 1989, the requester wrote to me appealing both decisions, and I sent notices of appeal to the appellant and the institutions on June 1, 1989. 5. Upon receipt of the appeals, the Appeals Officer assigned to the cases obtained and reviewed the requested record. It can be described as a 36-page log or index of issue sheets prepared and updated by the institutions on a monthly basis during 1988 and January 1989. It is important to note that the issue sheets themselves do not form part of the record, only the index. Because the record includes reference to issue sheets prepared by both institutions, the record at issue in each of these appeals is identical. 6. The Appeals Officer met with the Co-ordinator to discuss a possible settlement of the issues raised in the appeals. Because the institutions maintained their position with respect to the application of the subsection 12(1)(e) exemption, a mediated settlement was not possible. 7. By letters dated September 19, 1989, I notified both institutions and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decisions of the heads. In accordance with my usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is 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 other parties, to be relevant to the appeal. The Report also indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report. 8. Representations were received from the institutions. In these representations, the institutions referred to the possible application of subsection 12(1)(a) as an additional ground for exempting the record. I have considered this additional exemption in making my Order. The appellant chose to rely on the representations contained in his letter of appeal. 9. I have considered all representations in making my Order. The issues arising in these appeals are as follows: A. Whether the record at issue in these appeals falls within the scope of the mandatory exemptions provided by subsections 12(1)(a) or (e) of the Act . B. If the answer to Issue A is in the affirmative, whether the severability requirements of subsection 10(2) of the Act apply to the requested record. It is important to note at the outset that the purposes of the Act as outlined in subsection l(a) and (b) are as follows: (a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that, (i) information should be available to the public, (ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and (iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government; and (b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information. 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 lies with the head of the institution. ISSUE A : Whether the record at issue in these appeals falls within the scope of the mandatory exemptions provided by subsections 12(1)(a) or (e) of the Act . Subsection 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act read as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees, including, (a) an agenda, minute or other record of the deliberations or decisions of the Executive Council or its committees; . . . (e) a record prepared to brief a minister of the Crown in relation to matters that are before or are proposed to be brought before the Executive Council or its committees, or are the subject of consultations among ministers relating to government decisions or the formulation of government policy; and . . . Looking first at subsection 12(1)(e), in order to qualify for exemption under this subsection, the record itself must have been prepared to brief a Minister in relation to matters that are either: (a) before or proposed to be brought before the Executive Council or its committees; or, (b) the subject of consultations among ministers relating to government decisions or the formulation of government policy. In my view, a record that has been prepared to brief a minister on a matter falling under either of the above ca
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
12(1)
-
12(1)(a)
-
12(1)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 19, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|