|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1499
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P_9700188
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedomof Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for OntarioAbortion Statistics for 1994, under the following eleven categories: 1.Number of Abortions by Hospital or Clinic 2.County of Residence 3.Gestation Period - weeks 4.Marital Status 5.Number of previous abortions - induced 6.Number of previous abortions - spontaneous 7.Age of Patient 8.Complications 1 9.Complications 2 10.Complications 3 11.Initial Procedure The Ministry granted access in full to information responsive to Items 2-10,but denied access to the one record responsive to Item 1 pursuant to thefollowing exemption claims: endanger life or safety - section 14(1)(e) endanger security of a building - section 14(1)(i) third party information - section 17(1) danger to safety or health - section 20 invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision. The record is a two-page document titled "NO. OF ABORTIONS BY HOSPITALAND CLINIC, 1994", and consists of listed information under the headings "HOSPITAL/CLINIC"and "COUNT". A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the Ministry, the appellant and the 77hospitals and clinics listed in the record (the affected parties). Representations were received from the Ministry, the appellant and 51 affectedparties. Two affected parties consented to disclosure of information abouttheir facilities. PRELIMINARY MATTER: Application of the Act A second affected party, a public hospital, claims that because it is not an"institution", the Act does not apply to its information. Section 10(1) of the Act provides as follows: Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in thecustody or under the control of an institution unless the record or the part ofthe record falls within one of the exemptions under sections 12 to 22. As the Ministry and some of the affected parties point out in theirrepresentations, although the information originates from non-institutions, theclinics are required to provide the information to the Ministry as a conditionof their licences issued under the Independent Health Facilities Act (the IHFA ) and the hospitals' reporting requirements are pursuant to the Public Hospitals Act (the PHA ). In my view, the record isclearly "in the custody or under the control" of the Ministry. Therefore, the record falls within the scope of the right of access undersection 10(1), despite the fact that the information contained in the recordsoriginated with non-institutions. I find that the record is in the custody and under the control of theMinistry, and subject to the Act . DISCUSSION: ENDANGER LIFE OR SAFETY/SECURITY The Ministry claims that the exemptions contained in sections 14(1)(e) and(i) apply. Several affected parties provided representations in support of thisposition. These sections read: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure couldreasonably be expected to, (e)endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer orany other person; (i)endanger the security of a building or the security of a vehiclecarrying items, or of a system or procedure established for the protection ofitems, for which protection is reasonably required; These sections stipulate that the Ministry may refuse to disclose a recordwhere doing so could reasonably be expected to result in aspecified type of harm. This harm must not be fanciful, imaginary or contrivedbut rather one which is based on reason, and the Ministry must offer sufficientevidence to support the position that disclosure could reasonably be expected toresult in the harms contemplated by these sections. Neither the Ministry nor any of the affected parties focus theirrepresentations on the direct impact of disclosing the record to the appellant. However, the Ministry submits that if the record is disclosed, it would be "inthe public domain and therefore available to all of the individuals and groupswho are involved in the pro life movement, including those who may elect toutilize acts of vandalism and property damage to promote their cause." The Ministry and several affected parties provide examples of the activitiesof some of the extreme factions of the pro life movement which use violent andillegal methods to promote their cause. These activities include harassment,death threats, bombings, and life threatening attacks against providers ofabortion services. The Ministry does not dispute that all of the clinics and atleast some of the hospitals listed on the record are known to provide abortionservices, but argues that disclosure of the number of abortions performed atthese facilities could escalate the harassment and violence directed againstthem. The Ministry includes a number of examples it feels support thisposition. The Ministry and a number of affected parties also point to specific actswhich have occurred over the past several years, some quite recently, involvingstaff working in these facilities. The Ministry submits that the moreinformation made available, the more likely specific individuals or facilitieswill be targeted for harassment and violence. The Ministry and the affected parties point out that abortion clinics arefrequently targeted for protest and harassment and that disclosure of the recordwould place smaller facilities, facilities that have a higher number ofabortions, and facilities which appear on the list for the first time at thegreatest risk. Several affected parties also emphasize their concern that disclosing anyinformation which would serve to identify a facility and any individualsinvolved in providing abortion services, may result in a decline in the numberof health professionals prepared to work in this field of medicine. The appellant submits that reliance by the Ministry on these exemptions isnot reasonable. According to the appellant, abortion clinics advertise theirservices in telephone directories, and it is commonly and publicly known whichhospitals perform abortion services. The appellant submits that the mereknowledge of the number of procedures performed does not increase any "risk"that may already exist. The appellant also points out that the organization sherepresents has never been "linked to any violent action in the abortiondebate, and in fact has passed a binding resolution on its members thatrenounces the use of violence in furtherance of the goals of the organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(1) custody or control
-
14(1)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 08, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|