|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-187
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890218
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Government Services This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , as amended, (the " Act ") which gives a person who has made a request for access to a record unde
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Orders under the Act . The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. By letter, dated June 5, 1989, the requester clarified and amended a previous request he had made to the Ministry of Government Services (the "institution") as follows: Please withdraw all but 3 requests for General Records and ammend (sic) the 3 remaining requests in order for them to read: 1) Request for Copies of 3 sets of Specifications for the New Replacement Windows in the [Name of facility] 2) Request for Copies of specifications for the Old existing windows in the [Name of facility] 3) Request for Copies of specifications for the Present Windows in the Visiting Complex in the [Name of facility] Please process each of these requests seperately (sic) and grant a continuation of all the requests for a 2 year period under Section 24(3) of the Act. The reason for these requests is compare (sic) the specifications to the building code to confirm or deny their compatibility with the Ventilation Provisions for Institutional Occupancies. This amended request followed a letter, dated May 31, 1989, to the institution, from the requester, in which he had thanked the institution for already having provided him with these same records, but advised that they had been confiscated, a day after he had received them, by an official of [Name of facility]. 2. On July 12, 1989, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") for the institution responded to the requester as follows: After consultation with the Ministry of Health, it has been decided that documentation relating to tenders for replacement windows is restricted to qualified contractors involved in the project. Access is accordingly denied to all other persons due to the sensitive nature of the records. On July 12, 1989, the Deputy Minister of the institution advised the requester that: After consultations with the Ministry of Health, it has been decided that documentation relating to tenders for replacement windows is restricted to qualified contractors involved in the project. Access is accordingly denied to all other persons due to the sensitive nature of the records pursuant to subsection 14 (1)(j)(k)(l) of the Act. 3. By letter dated July 19, 1989, the requester appealed the denial of access. 4. On July 27, 1989, notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant. 5. In his letter of appeal regarding the denial of access, the appellant, in relation to the exemptions cited by the institution to deny him access to the records, stated that: Each of the exemptions primarily deal with jeopardizing the security of [Name of facility]/facilitating the escape from [Name of facility] and facilitating the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime . It is my contention that these 3 areas of concern were adequately addressed previously by a Minister of the Crown, The Hon. Richard Patten when on June 6th, 1989 at approx. 3:13 pm stated that: 'In this particular instance, it was deemed that the information in no way could assist an individual to leave that institution.' In the article of the Midland Free Press, dated June 6th, 1989 (Document O), The Hon. Richard Patten made several comments which included statements that the material in question does not constitute a security risk, and does not constitute a breach of security. I feel that these 2 Documents illustrate the fact that the Hon. Richard Patten, Minister of Government Services agrees with me and contrary to his own Deputy Minister supports my contention that the records in question do not fall under the 3 exemptions which we exercised... Further the appellant stated: I ask you to examine Document M and specifically the statements attributed to Mr. Rob Wooler, who is Special Assistant for Communications to the Minister of Government Services, The comments attributed to Mr. Rob Wooler by the appellant are as follows: Wooler said 'the documents prepared for tenders on replacing windows at the hospital were available to the Public with or without a freedom of information application.' My 3 points of appeal are as follows: 1) the records requested in my particular case as they relate me (sic) and with considerations given to the fact that they were previously released to me do not justify to (sic) usage of the exemption of Section 14, 1 j, k, l, and since the Minister of the Crown has concluded them not to constitute a Security risk. 2) The Ministry of Government Services was aware of who I was, and my legal status as well as place of residence when they released the records originally. 3) Mr. Rob Wooler has stated that the materials are of a purely public nature not falling under the Freedom of Information Act or not requiring a (sic) access request to the Act. In this case, Section 22 of the Act should have been used by the Tender Office and Mr. John D. Campbell in his letter to me dated July 12th, 1989 (Document B) should have followed normal Ministry procedure in releasing documents to the public. This procedure was previously demonstrated in Document E where Mr. John D. Campbell sent copies of the material free of charge. 6. The records at issue were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer. No attempt was made to mediate as the appellant indicated that he was not prepared to participate in mediation. 7. By letter dated January 8, 1990, notice that an inquiry was being conducted was given to the institution and the appellant. Enclosed with the Notice of Inquiry was a copy of a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(2)
-
11(1)
-
14(1)(j)
-
14(1)(k)
-
14(1)(l)
-
29(1)(b)
-
63(2)
-
29(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 13, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|