|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2016-I
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010080-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal from a decision of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). An organization (the appellant) submitted a request to the Ministry for access to records relating to four named corporations and to two federal government agencies, in the following terms: "…all documents that the Ministry has with regards to the following companies: [named company "A"] [named company "B"] The Canadian Development Corporation Ontario Development Corporation Health Canada's Health Protection Branch and /or Bureau of Biologics Specifically, I am requesting: Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "A"] and [named company "B"]; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "A"] and The Canadian Development Corporation; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "A"] and the Ontario Development Corporation; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "A"] and Health Canada's Health Protection Branch and /or Bureau of Biologics; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "B"] and The Canadian Development Corporation; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "B"] and the Ontario Development Corporation; Any documents, including but not exclusive of, submitted funding requests and proposals, business plans, special requests, and minutes of meetings that mention joint activities/projects/meetings of [named company "B"] and Health Canada's Health Protection Branch and /or Bureau of Biologics; The period for which I am seeking all these documents is January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1986 inclusive." The Ministry responded by indicating that it had conducted a search in its Public Health Branch and had located several hundred records, including correspondence, reports and briefing notes. The Ministry advised that it was denying access to all of the responsive records on the basis of the exemptions at sections 13(1) (advice to government), 14(1) (law enforcement), 15 (intergovernmental relations), 17 (third party commercial information), 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21 (personal privacy) of the Act . The Ministry also stated the following: "…section 14, the law enforcement exemption applies to all the records. Section 14 is relevant as a result of the long-standing criminal investigation by the RCMP into the possible wrongdoing in the Canadian blood system during the period 1980-1990". By letter dated February 27, 2001, the appellant appealed the Ministry's decision to this office. After the filing of this appeal, and during mediation of the appeal through this office, a number of events occurred. On August 27, 2001, the Ministry issued a supplementary decision letter. In this letter, the Ministry advised that the records deal exclusively with named company "A" and that records relating to the other organizations referenced in the request were not located, nor any records dealing with this company's relationship with these other entities. The Ministry indicated that the search period was from 1970 to 1990. The Ministry also stated that the Records Management Branch of the Ministry no longer retained any records after their transfer to the Archives of Ontario. Accordingly, the Appellant may wish to address its request to the Archives or to the Ministry of the Attorney General from which this Ministry had obtained the records found to be responsive to the request. Finally, the scope of the search was exclusively among the documents in the possession of the Legal Services Branch of this Ministry. On August 29, 2001, the Ministry sent an index of records to the appellant and to the mediator. The index lists 1,257 records, citing exemptions for most of the records. Some of the records have been marked as being non-responsive to the request. In the Ministry's index of records, three additional exemptions were claimed that were not raised in the original decision letter, sections 12, 18 and 22(a). In the Report of Mediator, all of the exemptions relied on by the Ministry are noted as issues in dispute. Further, the Report indicates that the reasonableness of the search for responsive records is also an issue, as is the ability of the Ministry to raise new discretionary exemptions late in the process, and the responsiveness of certain records. I decided to bifurcate my inquiry and deal initially with two issues: the applicability of section 14(1) of the Act , and the reasonableness of the Ministry's search for responsive records. I decided on this process since it was possible that my determinations of these issues would resolve most or all of the issues in this appeal. Because a criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the RCMP) was cited by the Ministry as the basis for applying the section 14(1) exemption under the Act , I also decided to notify the RCMP and provide it with the opportunity of making representations on the issues raised by section 14(1) at this stage of my inquiry. In the Notice of Inquiry which was sent to the Ministry and to the RCMP, I summarized the facts and issues raised by the appeal and invited them to make representations on these. Among other things, I specifically requested that if the parties were relying on documentary evidence, such as court orders, that I be provided with a copy of such evidence. I also requested that if a party was unable to provide this evidence, it explain to me why it was unable to do so. Further, with respect to the issue of the reasonableness of its search, I asked the Ministry to provide its evidence in affidavit form. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, the RCMP provided brief representations in which it indicated that it does not object to the release of the records which are the subject of this inquiry. The Ministry also provided representations to me. Subsequently, I wrote to the Ministry, giving it a further opportunity to provide representations on certain matters and stating, among other things: By this letter, I am requesting once again that the Ministry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sherry Liang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 23, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order – Interim
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|