|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2045
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010220-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information relating to the transfer agreement between the government (for the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital) and the Province Continuing Care Centre (St. Mary's of the Lake Hospital). The request was clarified to include: …any correspondence, cabinet briefs, briefing notes, reports, documentation and studies relating to and including the transfer agreement, assessments done, and all documentation between the government (for the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital) and the Province Continuing Care Centre (St. Mary's of the Lake Hospital) in Kingston. This includes quarterly reports on the status of implementation of all directions and progress reports on the implementation of the Human Resources Adjustment plan as directed by the Health Service Restructuring Committee and amended by the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, on June 2, 2000 for Frontenac, Lennox and Addington counties. The time frame for the request was also clarified to be from the date that the Restructuring Committee submitted its recommendations regarding Kingston Psychiatric Hospital to the Minister (sometime in 1998). The Ministry acknowledged that the request also included reports for December 2000 and March 2001 and indicated that the search for records would only be up to the date of the request, which was received on November 22, 2000. The Ministry then issued a fee estimate and indicated that sections 17(1) (third party information), 21(1) (invasion of privacy) and section 65(6) (jurisdiction) may apply to some of the records. The appellant paid the fee. The Ministry did not issue a decision at that time and the appellant appealed the Ministry's "deemed refusal" to this office (Appeal PA-010220-1). This appeal was forwarded to my attention but was subsequently resolved during the inquiry stage by agreement of the two parties. Pursuant to this agreement, the Ministry provided the appellant with a decision regarding certain records (the Phase one decision) and undertook to provide a decision or decisions with respect to the remaining records shortly thereafter (the Phase two and possibly Phase three decisions). With respect to the "Phase one" decision, the Ministry indicated that section 12 of the Act (Cabinet Records) applied to Records HRIT 65 and 66 and that access to certain other records was denied as they were either created outside the time frame of the request or were not responsive to the request. The remaining records identified in Phase one were disclosed to the appellant. The Ministry attached an Index of Records to its decision letter, which described the records for Phase one and the Ministry's decision with respect to each one. The appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access and Appeal PA-010220-2 was opened. During mediation of the current appeal, the appellant confirmed that he was only appealing the denial of access to Records 11, 65 and 66. As noted above, the Ministry withheld Records 65 and 66 in their entirety based on the mandatory exemption under section 12 of the Act . The Ministry indicated on the Index of Records that Record 11 was being denied in its entirety as it fell outside the request date. After reviewing the information in the records in conjunction with the Ministry's decision letter and the exemption claimed to withhold access, the Mediator assigned to this appeal noted that Record 11, which was dated March 2, 2000, was created before the date of the request and was therefore, within the scope of the request. The Ministry agreed. Therefore, the scope of the request is no longer an issue. However, the Ministry stated that it was also claiming the application of section 12 to Record 11 as the information in this record (a transitional budget worksheet) was also contained in the appendices to Record 65 (which comprise Record 66). The Ministry subsequently issued a supplementary decision to the appellant in which it claimed section 12(1) for this record. Further mediation could not be effected and this appeal was moved into adjudication. The sole issue in this appeal is the application of section 12 to Records 11, 65 and 66. I decided to seek representations from the Ministry, initially, and sent it a Notice of Inquiry setting out the facts and issues remaining to be adjudicated. The Ministry submitted representations in response. I sought representations from the appellant and attached the non-confidential portions of the Ministry's representations to the copy of the Notice that I sent to him. The appellant submitted representations in response. RECORDS: The records at issue in this appeal consist of the transitional budget (Record 11), MB20 submission PPH (Provincial Psychiatric Hospitals) Divestment (Record 65) and Appendices (Record 66) withheld under section 12 of the Act . DISCUSSION: CABINET RECORDS The Ministry submits that the records at issue fall within the mandatory exemption provided by sections 12(1)(a), (b) and (e) of the Act , or the introductory wording in section 12(1). These sections read: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees, including, (a) an agenda, minute or other record of the deliberations or decisions of the Executive Council or its committees; (b) a record containing policy options or recommendations submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees; (e) a record prepared to brief a minister of the Crown in relation to matters that are before or are proposed to be brought before the Executive Council or its committees, or are the subject of consultations among ministers relating to government decisions or the formulation of government policy. It has been determined in a number of previous orders that the use of the term "including" in the introductory wording of section 12(1) means that the disclosure of any record which would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees (not just the types of records enumerated in the various subparagraphs of section 12(1)), qualifies for exemption under section 12(1) (Orders P-22, P-331, P-894, P-1570). It is also possible that a record which has never been placed before Cabinet or its committees may qualify for exemption under the introductory wording of section 12(1). This result will occur where an institution establishes that the disclosure of the reco
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Laurel Cropley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Sep 16, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|