|
A request was made to the Ministry of Financial Institutions (now the Ministry of Finance) (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to "copies of all claims, correspondence, proposals, offers to settle, defence to the claim and all related documents and reports" which relate to a claim advanced by a named law firm on behalf of a number of investors (part 1). These investors were individuals or companies who had lost monies in the collapse of certain companies involved in the mortgage brokerage business. The requester also sought access to certain correspondence and billings involving the law firm and the Ministry (part 2).
The Ministry did not issue a decision within the 30 day time period as set out in the Act, and the requester appealed the deemed refusal as set out in section 29(4) of the Act. The Ministry subsequently issued a decision letter.
The Ministry located and disclosed the records responsive to part 2 of the request. As far as part 1 of the request was concerned, the Ministry provided the appellant with a fee estimate of $1,833.60. Although the Ministry indicated in its decision letter that exemptions might be applied to the records responsive to part 1 of the request, no specific exemptions were cited.The Ministry indicated that it required a deposit of $916.80 (50% of the fee estimate) in order to process the request.
Upon receipt of the Ministry's decision, the appellant advised the Appeals Officer assigned to the appeal that he objected to the payment of any fees for processing part 1 of his request. The appeal was continued as an appeal of the amount of the fee estimate. The appellant claims that, as the information contained in the responsive records consists of his personal information, pursuant to section 57(2) of the Act, a fee should not have been charged. In the alternative, he claims that the fee was not calculated in accordance with section 57(1) of the Act.
Mediation was not possible, and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Ministry's decision was sent to the appellant and to the Ministry. Representations were received from both parties.
|