|
|
Document
|
|
P-1184
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9500724
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to all documents filed with the Ontario Insurance Commission and/or the Ministry of Finance by the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LPIC). LPIC is wholly owned by the Law Society of Upper Canada and has operated, since 1990, a mandatory liability insurance scheme on behalf of the Law Society's members under the authority of section 5(4) of the Law Society Act . The Ministry located a large number of responsive records and, pursuant to section 28 of the Act , notified LPIC of the request. LPIC consented to the disclosure of a substantial number of records but objected to disclosure of others. The Ministry then issued its decision in which it granted partial access to the records. For those records to which access was denied, in whole or in part, the Ministry claimed the application of the following exemptions contained in the Act : third party information - section 17(1) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision to deny access. During the mediation of the appeal, the appellant agreed that Record Groups 4, 6, 7 and 8 and information relating to the addresses and citizenship of the Directors and officers of LPIC contained in portions of the other records were no longer at issue in this appeal. The records remaining at issue consist of biographical questionnaires, LPIC's application for incorporation, a consent to transfer shares, a list of shareholders, annual statements for the years 1990-1994 inclusive, reinsurance contracts, actuarial reports and related documents, along with correspondence between the Ministry, the Law Society and LPIC's officers. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry, the appellant and LPIC. Representations were received from all three parties. I will refer to the records in this order using the numerical index provided by the Ministry with its representations. DISCUSSION: INVASION OF PRIVACY Under section 2(1) of the Act , "personal information" is defined to mean recorded information about an identifiable individual. The Ministry submits that portions of the documents listed in Record Groups 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 contain personal information. It submits that the biographical information in Record Group 3 was supplied to the Ministry by each of the officers and directors of LPIC, in confidence, and that it qualifies as their personal information. In addition, the Ministry argues that the names of the LPIC shareholders, which is the sole information remaining at issue in Exhibits K, L and N of Record Group 3 and Record Groups 10, 11(b), 12(b), 13(a), 14(a) and (b), 15, 16(b), 17(a) and 18(a), also constitutes the personal information of these individuals. I note that the common shareholders of LPIC are the Law Society and six individuals who are either LPIC employees or Benchers of the Law Society, who are charged with governing its affairs. The Law Society is the sole corporate shareholder in LPIC and the sole owner of the preferred shares in the company. Further, it is important to point out that the six individuals listed as shareholders in the annual statements hold only a nominal number of the common shares, 30 out of 30,000 issued. I find that the names of the six individuals in each of the annual and other corporate filings contained in Record Groups 3 (Exhibits K, L and N), 10, 11(b), 12(b), 13(a), 14(a) and (b), 15, 16(b), 17(a) and 18(a) do not constitute the personal information of these individuals. Rather, I find that each individual was acting in his employment or professional capacity as an officer of LPIC or as a Law Society Bencher when acting as a shareholder in LPIC. As the information is not "personal information" within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act , I find that it cannot qualify for exemption under section 21(1) of the Act . I find, however, that the biographical information of the officers and directors of LPIC contained in Record Group 3 (Exhibit H) qualifies as the personal information of these individuals. These records contain detailed information about the individuals which goes far beyond their nominal interest as shareholders of LPIC. In addition, Record Group 17(d) contains information which qualifies as the personal information of certain Law Society members who have had liability claims made against them. Once it has been determined that a record contains personal information, section 21(1) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of this information unless one of the exceptions listed in this section applies. The only exception which might apply in the circumstances of this appeal is section 21(1)(f), which permits disclosure if it "does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy". Sections 21(2), (3) and (4) of the Act provide guidance in determining whether disclosure of personal information would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Where one of the presumptions in section 21(3) applies to the personal information found in a record, the only way such a presumption against disclosure can be overcome is if the personal information falls under section 21(4) or where a finding is made that section 23 of the Act applies to the personal information. If none of the presumptions in section 21(3) apply, the Ministry must consider the application of the factors listed in section 21(2) of the Act , as well as all other relevant circumstances in the case. The Ministry submits that the disclosure of the biographical information pertaining to LPIC officers and directors would constitute a presumed unjustified invasion of their personal privacy as the information relates to employment and educational history (section 21(3)(d)), describes an individual's finances (section 21(3)(f)) and consists of personal recommendations or evaluations (section 21(3)(g)). Further, the Ministry argues that the disclosure of the biographical information would unfairly expose the individual to whom it relates to harm (section 21(2)(e)), the information is highly sensitive (section 21(2)(f)), the information was supplied in confidence (section 21(2)(h)) and the disclosure of the information may unfairly damage the reputation of the person to whom it relates (section 21(2)(i)). LPIC also objects to the disclosure of th
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a)
-
17(1)(c)
-
21(3)(d)
-
21(3)(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 23, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|