|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R BACKGROUND: On July 25, 1989, the requester submitted a request for access to records relating to Bill 108, The Insurance Amendment Act, 1986 . The time frame encompassed by the request was January 1, 1986 through August 1, 1987 and March 21, 1989 through July 24, 1989. The request was made to the Ministry of Financial Institutions (the "institution"). The institution provided access to one record and denied access to other records pursuant to sections 12(1)(c), 12(1)(e), 12(1)(f), 15(a), 15(b) and 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the " Act "). The requester appealed the head's decision to this office. During the course of mediation, the institution disclosed several additional records. By letter dated February 12, 1990, the institution provided the appellant with access to two records, and indicated that sections 12(1)(a), 13(1), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(e) and 22 were being cited as further exemptions to deny access to the remaining records. Between April 17, 1991 and June 20, 1991, the institution granted the appellant access to 18 additional records. Because further attempts at settlement were unsuccessful, the appeal proceeded to inquiry, and a Notice of Inquiry was sent to the appellant and the institution. An Appeals Officer's Report, which is intended to assist the parties in making any representations to the Commissioner concerning the subject matter of the appeal, accompanied the Notice of Inquiry. Subsequently, because the institution had changed its position with respect to exemptions, and had granted access to various records over a period of time, the Appeals Officer prepared a compilation of the institution's exemption claims for each record. This was sent to the appellant and the institution and further representations were invited. Representations were received from the institution, but not from the appellant. The institution's representations make no reference to the claims for exemption under sections 15(a) and 22, and I assume that these exemptions have been withdrawn. The Appeals Officer also sent a Notice of Inquiry to 12 parties whose interest might be affected by the outcome of the appeal (the "affected parties"). Replies were received from 11 of the affected parties. All records at issue in this appeal relate to the new property and casualty insurance scheme being developed by the government at that time. Before I discuss the proper disposition of the various records, a few facts should be noted. First, the institution has claimed that Record *4 is not responsive to the request and I concur, given that the date of the record is October 3, 1989, which is clearly outside the scope of the appellant's request. Second, I note that Record 1G has the notation "....2" at the bottom of the page, but no page 2 is attached. The institution has been unable to locate any second page of the record, despite conducting a detailed search. I am satisfied that the institution has made a thorough search for the remainder of Record 1G, and I accept that, for the purposes of this appeal, there is only one page to Record 1G. Third, a number of records identified by the institution are duplicates. During the course of the appeal, with the consent of the institution, the appellant was provided with an index which generally described the records and highlighted the duplicates. There is no dispute between the parties about the duplicates. Finally, it became obvious that what the institution classified as Record P&P 10 should have been divided into two separate records. Accordingly, for the purpose of this appeal I have divided the record in two parts and designated the parts as P&P 10(1) and P&P 10(2). Copies of these two records are being forwarded to the institution with this Order for reference. The records to be dealt with in this Order are 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 1N, 1O, 1P, 1Q, 1R, 1S, 1T, 1U, 1W, 1Y, 1Z, 1AA, 2A, 2B, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3K, 3Q, 3R, 3S, 3T, 6A, 6B, 6F, 7A, 7B, 8C, 8F, Policy & Planning (P&P) 2, P&P 5, P&P 8, P&P 10(1), P&P 10(2), P&P 11, P&P 13, P&P 15, P&P 17, P&P 18, *1, *2 and *3. All other records initially at issue in this appeal have either been disclosed to the appellant, are duplicates, or are not responsive to the request. For ease of reference, I have attached an appendix to this Order which consists of a chart of the exemptions claimed by the institution, and my final determination with respect to each record. ISSUES/DISCUSSION: The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 12 of the Act applies to any of the records. B. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 13(1) of the Act applies to any of the records. C. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 15(b) of the Act applies to any of the records. D. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 17(1)(b) of the Act applies to any of the records. E. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 18(1)(e) of the Act applies to any of the records. F. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act applies to any of the records. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A : Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 12 of the Act applies to any of the records. The representations of the institution make reference to sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(f), and the introductory wording of section 12(1). The institution has not submitted representations respecting sections 12(1)(c) or (e) and, in my view, sections 12(1)(c) and (e) are not relevant in the circumstances of this appeal. Sections 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act read as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Ex
|