|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-51
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
880257, 880278 and 880279
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R These appeals were 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) the right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On June 21, 1988, the Ministry of Health (the "institution") received the following request for access to records: "1. Amount of money that [medical laboratory service organization A] were paid in the fiscal years, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. 2. Amount of money that [medical laboratory service organization B] were paid in the fiscal years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. 3. Amount of money that [medical laboratory service organization C] were paid in the fiscal years, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. 4. I would like copies of submitted bids and/or contracts for [medical laboratory service organization A]. 5. I would like copies of submitted bids and/or contracts for [medical laboratory service organization B]. 6. I would like copies of submitted bids and/or contracts for [medical laboratory service organization C]. NO EXCLUSIONS TO THE ABOVE INFORMATION." 2. The institution processed the items as six separate requests. Access to the records referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 was provided to the requester. As far as the other three requests were concerned, the requester was informed by letter on August 4, 1988 that "...access has been denied [by the Deputy Minister of the institution] under the authority of Section 67 of the Act." In this letter, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") pointed out that section 44(2) of the Health Insurance Act acted as a confidentiality provision, barring the application of the Act . 3. On August 17, 1988, the requester wrote to me appealing the decisions of the Deputy Minister and I gave notice of the appeals to the institution. 4. Copies of the requested records were obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer assigned to these appeals. 5. The appellant was provided with a copy of my Order 9 (Appeal Number 880016) released July 28, 1988, wherein I held that section 44 of the Health Insurance Act was a confidentiality provision within the meaning of section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 . That Order referred to section 44 of the Health Insurance Act and discussed my approach to the application of section 67 of the Act . The appellant was advised that the issue to be determined in these appeals concerned the scope of the confidentiality provision in question and whether it was sufficiently broad to cover the requested records. 6. Attempts were made by the Appeals Officer and the parties to settle these appeals, however a settlement was not effected as both parties maintained their respective positions. 7. On February 2, 1989 my office sent notices to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decisions of the head. Enclosed with this letter 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 appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeals 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 appeals. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. 8. On February 17, 1989, the parties were asked to provide written representations on the issue arising in these appeals. 9. Written representations were received from the institution and I have considered them in making this Order. No representations were received from the appellant. The issue arising in these appeals is as follows: Whether subsection 44(1) of the Health Insurance Act operates to bar the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 in the circumstances of these appeals. Specifically: A. Whether the confidentiality provision precludes access to the records requested by the appellant; and B. Whether any of the statutory exceptions listed in subsection 44(2) of the Health Disciplines Act operate to allow the release of the records requested by the appellant. The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 should be noted at the outset. Subsection (1)(a) provides the right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . The subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. It should also be noted that section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record or part of the record falls within one of the specified exemptions of the Act lies upon the head. Where, as in these appeals, an institution purports to withhold records or information from disclosure pursuant to a confidentiality provision, the onus is on the institution to prove that the confidentiality provision in question operates as a bar to the application of the Act . Section 67 of the Act reads as follows: (1) The Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly shall undertake a comprehensive review of all confidentiality provisions contained in Acts in existence on the day this Act comes into force and shall make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding, (a) the repeal of unnecessary or inconsistent provisions; and (b) the amendment of provisions that are inconsistent with this Act. (2) This Act prevails over a confidentiality provision in any other Act unless the other Act specifically provides otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 11, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|