|
This appeal arises from a request made by the appellant to the Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for information held by the Ministry about himself.
The Ministry granted the appellant partial access to the records, but denied access to the remaining three on the basis of the personal privacy exemption at section 21 of the Act.
The appellant appealed the Ministry’s decision.
I then conducted an inquiry into the appeal, and sought and received representations from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry changed its decision with respect to two records (Records 9 and 11), indicating that it was relying on the discretionary exemption under section 49(b), in conjunction with section 21 of the Act, rather than on the mandatory section 21 exemption alone. The Ministry indicated that section 49(b) was appropriate since Records 9 and 11 contained the personal information of both the appellant and other individuals.
In my Interim Order PO-2111-I, I agreed with the Ministry that the withheld portions of Records 9 and 11 qualified for exemption under section 49(b) in conjunction with section 21. However, I stated, “. . . [I]t does not appear that the Ministry has exercised its discretion under section 49(b)”. Therefore, I ordered the Ministry to exercise its discretion, “taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances of this case, and with reference to the principles in Order MO-1498.” In addition, I ordered the Ministry to provide me with representations on its exercise of discretion, and gave the appellant an opportunity to submit responding representations on the exercise of discretion issue.
The Ministry provided representations, and the appellant responded. The purpose of this order is to rule on the issue of whether or not the Ministry has appropriately exercised its discretion.
|