|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2224
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-020368-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to the following information relating to diagnostic clinics assessed under the Independent Health Facilities (IHF) program: The names and locations of clinics that have had their licences suspended by the health ministry. I would also like a copy of the assessment reports that lead to these suspensions. The names and locations of clinics that have had partial licence suspensions and their assessment reports. The names and locations of clinics where "major clinical quality deficiencies" were detected by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario but no licensing action was taken. I would also like a copy of those assessment reports. I am also requesting that I receive information on any corrective action taken by said clinics. I am seeking information that goes back to the beginning of the Independent Health Facilities program, which started in 1990. The Ministry issued an interim decision, estimating that there were 150 responsive records. The Ministry advised the requester that all records would likely be partially withheld under the following exemptions in the Act : sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) - third party commercial information section 18(1)(c) - economic and other interests of the Ministry section 21 - invasion of privacy In response, the requester narrowed the scope of her request to assessments undertaken in 1996 and 2001 only. The Ministry then issued a second interim decision, reducing the estimated number of responsive records to 30. The Ministry confirmed that the same exemptions would likely apply to portions of the records. The Ministry proceeded to notify approximately 36 IHFs (the affected parties) and obtained input from some of them on whether the records should be disclosed. Some objected to disclosure, others did not respond, and one consented. After considering the various submissions, the Ministry issued a final decision, granting partial access, with severances under sections 17(1) and 21 of the Act . The Ministry decided not to rely on the section 18(1)(c) exemption it had referred to earlier. The requester appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access. During mediation, the appellant raised the issue of whether the Ministry had correctly responded to her request. The Ministry subsequently clarified that it had located 36 records responsive to items 1 and 2 of the request. With respect to the remaining items listed in the request, the Ministry stated that no records exist. Because the appellant believes that additional records should exist with respect to the remaining items of her request, the reasonableness of the Ministry's search is an issue in this appeal. The appellant also maintains that the public interest override in section 23 of the Act applies in the circumstances of this appeal. Twenty affected parties also appealed the Ministry's decision to grant access, although two of them subsequently withdrew their appeals. After conducting an inquiry involving the requester, the Ministry, the remaining 18 affected parties and a number of employees or former employees of the various IHFs (the affected persons) and considering representations from all participating parties, I issued Order PO-2187 which disposed of all issues in 17 of the 18 affected party appeals. I subsequently reconsidered one appeal (PA-020310-1), for reasons provided to the relevant parties, but did not change my original decisions. Order PO-2187 includes a separate provision relating to the 18 th affected party appeal (PA-020338-1). I upheld the Ministry's decision to disclose all portions of the 1996 record in that appeal, with the exception of the name of the facility that appears twice on page 1 and once at the top of page 2 of the record. The appellant subsequently agreed that this name, which was apparently included in error, could be removed from the scope of her request. Therefore, there are no remaining issues relating to the 1996 record. As far as the 2001 record in Appeal PA-020338-1 is concerned, I dealt with portions of this record in Order PO-2187, but deferred my findings for the portions under the headings "Policies and Procedures", "Providing Quality Care", "Quality Advisor" and "Film Review" on pages 3 and 4 of the record. I will deal with these remaining portions in this order. The Ministry has complied with Order PO-2187 and disclosed the relevant portions of the various records in all of the affected party appeals to the appellant. All of the same parties participated in the requester's appeal. I initiated my inquiry in the requester's appeal by sending a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry, the 20 affected parties in the related appeals, a number of other affected parties who had not appealed the Ministry's decision to disclose portions of records relating to their facilities, and affected persons identified in the various records. The Ministry and a number of affected parties and affected persons responded with representations. I then sent the Notice to the requester, together with a copy of the Ministry's representations and the non-confidential portions of the affected parties representations. The requester responded with representations, which were shared with the Ministry and the affected parties. The Ministry and a number of affected parties submitted reply representations. RECORDS: The records consist of 36 Assessment Reports prepared for the Independent Health Facilities Program during the years 1996 and 2001. Certain portions of these records have been disclosed to the requester in accordance with Order PO-2187. The portions that remain at issue in this appeal are those that have been withheld by the Ministry under sections 17(1) or 21 of the Act . For ease of discussion, I have numbered the various affected parties as follows: Affected parties 1-18 are assigned the same number used in association with their related appeals in Order PO-2187: Affected party 1 - Appeal PA-020288-1 Affected party 2 - Appeal PA-020304-1 Affected party 3 - Appeal PA-020305-1 Affected party 4 - Appeal PA-020306-1 Affected party 5 - Appeal PA-020308-1 Affected party 6 - Appeal PA-020309-1 Affected party 7 - Appeal PA-020310-1 Affected party 8 - Appeal PA-020311-1 Affected party 9 - Appeal PA-020312-1 Affected party 10 - Appeal PA-020313-1 Affected party 11 - Appeal PA-020314-1 Affected party 12 - Appeal PA-020315-1 Affected party 13 - Appeal PA-020316-1 Affected party 14 - Appeal PA-020325-1 Affected party 15 - Appeal PA-020338-1 Affected party 16 - Appeal PA-020339-1 Affected party 17 - Appeal PA-020346-1 Affected party 18 - Appeal PA-030017-1 Affected parties 19 and 20 are the two IHFs that initially appealed the Ministry's decision to disclose portions of the records relating to them, subsequently withdrew their appeals, but do not consent to disclosure of the portions of the records the Ministry decided to withhold: Affected party 19 - Appeal PA-020307-1 Affected party 20 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
18(1)(c)
-
21(3)(a)
-
21(3)(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 09, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|