|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1704
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-990065-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant made a request to the Ministry of Health (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for information pertaining to the Ministry's payments in the past five years to lawyers/law firms for services provided to the Minister of Health, the Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and their employees regarding proceedings before the Ontario Review Board or any disciplinary bodies. The Ministry issued an interim decision indicating that access would be granted to some records in whole or in part and access would be denied to other records pursuant to sections 17(1), 19, 21(1) and 65(2)(a) of the Act . The Ministry also assessed a fee of $405 for the processing of the request. The appellant then wrote to the Ministry requesting that the fees be waived pursuant to section 57(4)(b) (financial hardship) of the Act . The Ministry replied to the appellant indicating that, in order to consider a request to waive fees, the appellant must provide the Ministry with information regarding his financial position. The Ministry noted that such information should include proof of assets, income, expenses, etc. The appellant replied stating that he would not disclose to the Ministry any detailed financial information. The appellant did, however, advise the Ministry of his assets, the balance of his bank account, the amount and source of his income and gave details regarding his expenses. The Ministry then denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver on the basis that the appellant did not provide the Ministry with sufficient documentation concerning his financial position. The appellant appealed the Ministry's denial of a fee waiver. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. The sole issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the Ministry's decision not to grant a fee waiver should be upheld. DISCUSSION: FEE WAIVER The charging of fees is authorized in section 57(1) of the Act , and more specific provisions regarding fees are found in sections 6 and 6.1 of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 460. Provisions regarding fee waiver are found in section 57(4) of the Act and section 8 of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 460. An appellant, by virtue of section 57(5) of the Act , has the right to ask the Commissioner to review an institution's decision not to waive a fee. The Commissioner may then either confirm or overturn this decision based on a consideration of the criteria set out in section 57(4) of the Act . Previous orders of this office have found that the standard of review which should apply to the review by the Commissioner or his delegate to decisions issued under section 57(4) of the Act is one of correctness (Order P-474). I agree. In the Notice of Inquiry, I asked the appellant to respond to the following: You are asked to comment on the availability of a fee waiver with reference to the provisions of section 57(4) of the Act and section 8 of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 460. In Order 31 and subsequent orders it has been held that it is up to the requester to provide adequate evidence to support a claim for a fee waiver. In view of that, it would be advisable for you to submit any documents or other evidence which would support your entitlement to a fee waiver. You are also invited to comment on any of the other issues in the appeal, and to submit any further documents or other evidence which may be relevant. In particular, you are asked to comment on the sufficiency of the financial information which you provided to the Ministry in response to its requests for details of your financial situation. The Ministry was also asked to comment on this last point. The appellant explains why he needs the requested records, although he would prefer that this information not be expressed. Although not claimed by the appellant in his request to the Ministry or during mediation, the appellant now argues that his reasons for requesting the information from the Ministry is of "public importance because it will likely result in the exposure of an inappropriate use of public funds ...". In my view, the appellant is now claiming that dissemination of the record will benefit public health or safety (section 57(4)(c)). I will address this below. The appellant notes that, in its decision letter, the Ministry referred to a number of orders of this office which determined that a requester bears the burden of providing the institution with "adequate" information concerning his or her financial position. He states that he has been held in detention in a maximum secure institution for the past 18 years, and submits that whether or not the information is "adequate" must be considered in this context. He states: It is hard to imagine that someone detained in custody for that length of time would have any assets or a significant income. Everyone here suffers financial hardship by reason of their detention alone. He submits that it is unreasonable to require that he produce documents such as bank statements, income tax returns or copies of his Canada Pension cheques in order to prove that he suffers financial hardship. The Ministry sets out the appellant's response to its request for information in support of a fee waiver. In his response, the appellant states that he does "not feel comfortable in providing detailed financial information for the purpose of a fee waiver ..." and indicates that he will not provide copies of any records in that regard. He then goes on to indicate what personal property he owns, the amount of money in his bank account and the amount of money he receives from his disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan. He states that this money is deposited directly into his account at the institution and then he describes how he usually spends the money, most of which is spent on personal items and food. The Ministry states that the appellant's reasons for requesting the fee waiver are subjective and offer no substantive evidence of financial hardship. The Ministry notes that the appellant refused to provide it with copies of any r
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 19, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|