|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-876
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400477
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) received a request for access to the minutes of a meeting which took place in Toronto on specified dates. The meeting was attended by representatives of Revenue Canada, the Alberta Treasury and the Quebec and Ontario Ministries of Revenue. In particular, the requester sought access to the assessing policies of the Ministry under The Corporations Tax Act (the CTA ) as it applies to extra-provincial corporations with some form of nexus in Ontario. The Ministry denied access to all six pages of the minutes (the record). The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access. The Ministry relies on the following exemptions in denying access to the record: law enforcement - section 14(1) relations with other governments - section 15 tax return information - section 17(2) A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant and the Ministry. Notices of Inquiry were also provided to Revenue Canada, the Alberta Treasury and the Quebec Ministry of Revenue (the other government bodies). Representations were received from all parties. Sections 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Act are discretionary exemptions. The Ministry has made no representations in respect of these exemptions and I will therefore, not address the application of sections 14(1)(a) and (c) to the record. THE RECORD: The appellant indicated that he was not seeking access to the tax information of specific corporations. Nor was he interested in the information of the other government bodies. The information sought relates specifically to the tax assessing policies of the Ministry. However, in reviewing the record, I find that the information of named corporations and the information provided by other government bodies reflects the assessing policies of Ontario which is being sought by the appellant. On that basis, I will consider the application of the exemptions claimed by the Ministry to all the information in the record. The Ministry and the affected parties agree that the first page of the record which shows the names of the employees that attended the meeting may be disclosed. No mandatory exemptions apply to this information and on that basis, I order page 1 of the record to be disclosed to the appellant. DISCUSSION: TAX RETURN INFORMATION I will first consider those parts of the record which the Ministry has claimed to be exempt under section 17(2) of the Act . In its representations, the Ministry states that section 17(2) applies to the following portions of the record: paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 under Point 2, paragraphs 1 and 2 under Point 3 and paragraphs 1 and 2 under Point 7. Section 17(2) of the Act states as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals information that was obtained on a tax return or gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability or collecting a tax. Both the Ministry and the other government bodies submit that the information in the record contains taxpayer specific information, the disclosure of which would also be a breach of confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act (the ITA ). Subsection 241(4) of the ITA provides for certain situations where taxpayer information may be disclosed to provincial governments but also states, in part, that "no official shall knowingly allow any person to have access to any taxpayer information". The relevant part of section 17(2) states that an institution shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals information that was gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability or collecting a tax (Order P-553). I have reviewed those portions of the record which the Ministry claims are exempt from disclosure under section 17(2) of the Act . I find that the record contains information respecting the identity of various corporations and other information which was gathered to enable the Ministry to determine tax liability or ultimately collect a tax. I find that the portions of the record for which the Ministry has claimed section 17(2) are properly exempt from disclosure under that section of the Act . RELATIONS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS The Ministry claims that sections 15(a) and (b) of the Act apply to the remaining portions of the record. I will first consider the application of section 15(a) to the record. This section of the Act reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the conduct of intergovernmental relations by the Government of Ontario or an institution; and shall not disclose any such record without the prior approval of the Executive Council. For a record to qualify for exemption under section 15(a) the Ministry must establish that: 1. disclosure of the record could give rise to an expectation of prejudice to the conduct of intergovernmental relations; and 2. the relations which it is claimed would be prejudiced must be intergovernmental, that is relations between an institution and another government or its agencies; and 3. the expectation that prejudice could arise as a result of disclosure must be reasonable. [Order 210] For a record to be exempt under this section, each element of the three-part test under section 15(a) must be satisfied. The introductory portion of section 15 contains the words "could reasonably be expected to". These words have been interpreted in a number of previous orders involving various exemptions which include that phrase. Section 15 requires that the expectation that disclosure of a record could prejudice the conduct of intergovernmental relations or reveal information received in confidence by the institution from another government or its agencies, must not be fanciful, imaginary or contrived, but rather one that is based on reason (Orders P-270 and P-293). The record in this appeal consists of minutes of a meeting. The Ministry states that the purpose of the meeting, attended by tax administrators from the Ministry, Alberta, Quebec and Revenue Canada was to reach some common ground in statutory interpretation of a specific
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Mumtaz Jiwan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 23, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|