|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-331
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-910115
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Financial Institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER The Ministry of Financial Institutions (the institution) received the following request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: All studies commissioned by the Ontario Government since its election in September 1990 pertaining to automobile insurance. The costs of each study; a list of all studies; who conducted each study; the date each study was commissioned and the date each study was presented to the government and a copy of each study. Also, a list of any and all studies currently being prepared on automobile insurance; who is conducting the studies and when they are expected to be completed. Also, that a copy of these studies be made available to me upon their completion. A list of any and all studies being considered by the government on automobile insurance. The institution provided the requester with a list of studies commissioned by the government, including the names of the individuals or companies that prepared the studies and the dates that the studies were commissioned and presented to the government. The institution also provided the appellant with a bibliography outlining the studies being considered by the government. The institution denied access to copies of the studies pursuant to sections 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the Act . The institution also denied access to a list of the costs of the studies pursuant to section 18 of the Act . The requester appealed the institution's decision to this office. During mediation, the appellant confirmed that the bibliography satisfied his request as it related to which studies were being considered, and agreed to restrict his appeal to copies of the studies commissioned by the government and a list of their costs. Because further attempts to mediate the appeal were unsuccessful, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the appellant and the institution. Enclosed with the Notice of Inquiry was a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations the institution withdrew several of the claimed exemptions, and agreed to release a list of the costs of the studies. I am advised that this list has now been provided to the appellant and, therefore, it is no longer at issue in this appeal. A list of the records which remain at issue, together with the exemptions claimed for each, is attached to this order as Appendix A. BACKGROUND: In its representations, the institution outlines the process established by the government to consider the automobile insurance issue. In late 1990, Cabinet recommended the creation of an ad hoc committee on automobile insurance, the Cabinet Committee on Automobile Insurance (the CCAI). The mandate of the CCAI was to review auto insurance issues. Its membership consisted of several ministers and senior civil servants, as well as various policy advisors. The CCAI met on several occasions in late 1990 and early 1991, and reported directly to the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet (the P&P Board). Cabinet also recommended the creation of a working group on public auto insurance under the auspices of the Cabinet Office. The purpose of this working group was to advise and assist the CCAI. Subsequently, the working group was reconstituted and control of the project was transferred to the Ministry of Financial Institutions where the working group became known as the Ontario Automobile Insurance Review. Subsequently, an additional body, known as the Deputy Minister's Advisory Committee, was created in order to update the several other ministries whose programs might be affected by developments in the automobile insurance review process. All of the records at issue in this appeal were commissioned by the CCAI and circulated to various members of the working group on public automobile insurance for extensive review and discussion. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are: A. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 12 of the Act applies to the records. B. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 15, 18 and/or 19 of the Act apply to Records 3 and 4. C. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 13 of the Act applies to Records 6 and 12. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The institution submits that the introductory words of section 12(1) apply to exempt all records. This part of section 12(1) reads as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or it committees, For the purposes of this appeal, I adopt the following interpretation of section 12(1), outlined by former Commissioner Sidney B. Linden in Order 22: In my opinion, the use of the word including in subsection 12(1) of the Act should be interpreted as providing an expanded definition of the types of records which are deemed to qualify as subject to the Cabinet records exemption, regardless of whether they meet the definition found in the introductory text of subsection 12(1). At the same time, the types of documents listed in subparagraphs (a) through (f) are not the only ones eligible for exemption; any record where disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees qualifies for exemption under subsection 12(1). In this appeal the institution states that, with the exception of Record 5, the records themselves were never placed before Cabinet or its committees. In these circumstances, in order for a record to qualify for exemption under section 12(1) it must "reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees". In my view, disclosure of a record would reveal the substance of deliberations if the disclosure of information contained in the record would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the actual deliberations (Order P-226). The institution states that although many issues relating to public automobile insurance were finalized with the introduction of Bill 164 in December of 1991, policy development with respect to other issues relat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 16, 1992
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|