|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Interim Order are as follows: 1. On January 27, 1988, the Ministry of Financial Institutions (the "institution") received a request for the following information: pertaining to meetings, letters, recorded conversations, decisions that the Department of Insurance has with Motor Clubs as follows: Dominion Automobile Association, London, Ontario Ontario Automobile Association, London, Ontario National Automobile League, London, Ontario Trans-Canada Automobile League, Toronto, Ontario Ontario Motor League, Toronto, Ontario All matters concerning the selling of insurance in the PROVINCE of ONTARIO, all matters concerning the settling of disability claims of the above club's members. During the years 1980-present (1) During the years 1970-1980 (2) During the years 1960-1970 (3) During the years 1950-1960 (4) We would appreciate reviewing the files according to the 3 steps noted above. Should the 1st not be sufficient, then we would request step 2, and then step 3, and finally step 4. 2. On a number of occasions over the next five-month period, representatives of the institution met with the requester in order to attempt to clearly identify the scope of the request. 3. On July 25, 1988, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator for the institution (the "Co-ordinator") wrote to the requester advising that access was granted to all records responsive to his request, with the exception of nine records. In her letter the Co-ordinator stated: Of the nine exempt records, two would reveal consultation among Crown ministers on a matter of government policy (s. 12(1)(d)), two are reports prepared in the course of investigations by an agency which enforces and regulates compliance with a law (s. 14(2)(a)), and five are subject to solicitor client privilege (s.19). 4. In order to determine if he wanted copies of the records that the institution was prepared to disclose, the requester contacted the institution and made arrangements to attend and view the records. Between July and November of 1988, the requester made a number of visits to various offices of the institution to view these records. 5. On December 6, 1988, the requester wrote to me appealing the head's decision with respect to the exempt records, and I sent notices of appeal to the appellant and the institution. 6. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Appeals Officer assigned to the case obtained and reviewed the relevant records and attempted to mediate a settlement. 7. During the course of mediation the appellant expressed the view that the institution had not identified all records responsive to his request. Consequently, a Compliance Auditor from my staff attended at the offices of the institution to ascertain the adequacy of the institution's search. The Compliance Auditor completed his investigation and submitted a report, which has been taken into consideration in reaching my decision in this appeal. 8. Despite the efforts of the Appeals Officer, mediation of the issues in this appeal was not successful, and on August 29, 1989, I sent notice to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. In accordance with my usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrase those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. The Report also indicates that the parties, in making their representations need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. 9. Representations were received from the appellant and the institution, and I have considered them in making this Order. The nine records at issue in this appeal can be described as follows. #1 A letter dated May 15, 1980, from the Minister of Correctional Services to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. #2 A letter in reply to Record #1, dated June 12, 1980. #3 An interim investigation report and covering memorandum dated September 12, 1985, prepared by an employee of the institution. #4 An undated report of an examination conducted by two employees of the institution. #5 A memorandum-to-file dated February 16, 1983, prepared by a solicitor for the institution. #6 A memorandum dated August 2, 1984, from a solicitor for the institution to an employee of the institution. #7 A memorandum dated November 20, 1984, from a solicitor for the institution to an employee of the institution. #8 A memorandum dated March 19, 1985, from a solicitor for the institution to an employee of the institution. #9 A memorandum dated May 10, 1985, from a solicitor for the institution to an employee of the institution. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 12(1)(d) of the Act . B. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 14(2)(a) of the Act . C. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 19 of the Act . D. If either Issues A or C are answered in the affirmative, whether the records can reasonably be severed, under subsection 10(2) of the Act , without disclosing the information that falls under the exemption. E. Whether the institution has identified all records within its custody or under its control which respond to the appellant's request. It is important to note at the outset the purposes of the Act as set out in section 1. Subsection 1(a) provide
|