|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1037
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) received a request for all records pertaining to the project known as "1630 Lawrence Avenue West" (the Project), except for those which originated from or were sent to the requester. The Project is a not-for-profit development containing sixteen apartments for adults with physical disabilities. The requester was particularly interested in receiving funding approval information, including those records which indicate when the funding was operationalized, and how these funds have been accounted for since that time. The Ministry located 331 pages of records responsive to the request and granted partial access to them. Access was denied to the remaining records in full or in part on the basis of the following exemptions: advice or recommendations - section 13(1) economic and other interests- section 18(1)(e) proposed plans of an institution - section 18(1)(g) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) Following third party notification pursuant to section 28(1) of the Act , the Ministry also denied access to an additional 63 pages on the basis of the exemption in section 17(1) of the Act . The requester appealed the Ministry's decision. During mediation, the appellant withdrew his appeal of the Ministry's decision regarding the application of the exemption in section 21(1). These portions of the records are no longer at issue and should not be disclosed to the appellant. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry, the appellant and four affected parties. Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant and two of the affected parties. In its representations, the Ministry indicated that it no longer relies on the application of the exemption in section 18(1)(g). As this is a discretionary exemption, I will not consider it further in this order. In its representations, one of the affected parties consented to the disclosure of the records pertaining to it, provided this was done in a non-identifying manner. Accordingly, the portions of the records which do not identify this affected party are no longer at issue and should be disclosed to the appellant. The applicability of the exemption in section 17(1) to the identity of the affected party remains at issue in this appeal. The records at issue consist of letters, reports and memoranda. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION The records for which the Ministry claims the application of section 17 pertain to four organizations who had submitted proposals to the Ministry for the provision of support and attendant care services to disabled adults at the Project. Three of these proposals were submitted in response to a request for proposals (a RFP) issued by the Ministry in July, 1993. The fourth proposal was submitted specifically at the request of the Ministry. In response to notification by the Ministry under section 28(1) of the Act , one organization consented to the release of the majority of records pertaining to it. As I indicated above, another organization consented to an anonymized release of the records concerning it. The records at issue consist of letters and the proposals submitted by two organizations, two pages of the proposal submitted by one organization, and identifying information relating to one organization. For a record to qualify for exemption under section 17(1)(a), (b) or (c) the institution and/or the affected party must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and 3. the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the harms specified in (a), (b) or (c) of section 17(1) will occur. Part One The Ministry and affected parties submit that the records contain commercial and financial information in that they relate specifically to the business activities of the affected parties, and include budget details and financial statements. I agree, and find that the requirements of part one of the test have been met. Part Two In order to satisfy part two of the test, the information at issue must have been supplied by the affected parties to the Ministry, either explicitly or implicitly in confidence. As I indicated above, the proposals, (pages 106 - 132, 194 - 197 and 241 - 264) along with covering letters (pages 104 - 105 and 239 - 240) were submitted to the Ministry in response to a RFP, and pages 41 and 42 were submitted at the request of the Ministry. I am satisfied that the information in these pages was supplied to the Ministry. Pages 103 and 193 are letters from the Ministry to two of the affected parties, and as such were not supplied by the affected parties to the Ministry. A number of orders have determined that information contained in a record would reveal information "supplied" by a third party, within the meaning of section 17(1) of the Act , if its disclosure would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the information actually supplied to the institution. These two letters are in direct response to the proposals submitted by the affected parties and, for the most part, do not reveal information which was supplied by the affected parties. Portions of these letters, however, refer back to the affected parties' proposals. Disclosure of this information would reveal information actually supplied by the affected parties. I have found that portions of pages 103 and 193 were not supplied by the affected parties, nor would disclosure of them reveal information which was supplied by them. Accordingly, these portions fail to meet part two of the test. As all three parts of the section 17(1) test must be satisfied, I will not consider this information further. I will now consider whether the information contained in the proposals and covering letters, and the remaining portions of pages 103 and 193 which I found to be supplied, was supplied by the affected parties to the Ministry in confidence. The Ministry states that alth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
18(1)(e)
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 02, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|