|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-150
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeals 890129 and 890267
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Housing
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of these cases and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 1, 1989, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Housing (the "institution") seeking access to: With respect to a decision of the Rent Review Hearings Board dated January 17, 1989 by Mr. Roger Boire, appeal no. C-0504-88, Order No. C-88-0144: this requests copies of any memos, legal opinions, discussion papers or other documentations with respect to the application of Section 99 or Section 100 of the Rent Regulation Act available to be used by or supplied to the Board member and available to him to be used in making his decision in the above noted appeal and order; this also requests the record of proceedings compiled by the tribunal pursuant to section 20 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. 2. On March 20, 1989, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator for the institution (the "Co-ordinator") wrote to the requester advising that access was granted to all records, with the exception of one section of one record, and a second one page record, both of which were being withheld from disclosure pursuant to section 19 of the Act . 3. The requester wrote to me on April 26, 1989 appealing the institution's decision, and I gave notice of this appeal (Appeal Number 890129) to the institution. 4. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Appeals Officer assigned to the case obtained and reviewed the two records and attempted to mediate a settlement. 5. During the course of mediation, the Appeals Officer identified one other record which responded to the appellant's request, and on July 11, 1989, the appellant made a separate request to the institution for access to this record. The record is a seven page draft order of the Rent Review Hearings Board, with handwritten notations. 6. On August 11, 1989, the Co-ordinator wrote to the appellant informing him that: ...access is denied to the draft decision under section 19 of the Act . This provision applies because it would reveal information which falls under the solicitor-client exemption. 7. The appellant appealed the institution's decision with respect to the other record, and I gave notice of this appeal (Appeal Number 890267) to the institution. 8. The record at issue in Appeal Number 890267 was obtained and reviewed by the Appeals Officer, and further settlement discussions were undertaken. However, mediation efforts in both appeals were unsuccessful as both parties maintained their respective positions. 9. On September 19, 1989, I sent notice to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decisions in both appeals. In accordance with my usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is 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 Report also indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report. 10. Representations were received from the appellant and the institution. The appellant also indicated that he relied on representations made during the course of mediation. 11. On October 16, 1989, following a review of its representations, the institution was asked to provide further information on the role of an Appeal Assistant (now called Appeal Analyst). Additional representations on this point were received from the institution on October 23, 1989. 12. I have considered the representations of both parties in reaching my decision in these appeals. The records at issue in these appeals can be described as follows: Appeal Number 890129 Record #1 The one page cover page of a draft order of the Rent Review Hearings Board, including handwritten notes. Record #2 The Rent Rebate Worksheet, completed by the Appeal Assistant. This is a two page record, and includes one paragraph on the second page which gives an account of a consultation with a legal advisor. This paragraph was severed by the institution. Appeal Number 890267 Record #3 The seven page draft order of the Rent Review Hearings Board, including handwritten notes. The issues that arise in the context of these appeals are as follows: A. Whether any of the records, to which access has been denied, are subject to the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act . B. If the answer to issue A is in the affirmative, whether any of the records can reasonably be severed, under subsection 10(2) of the Act , without disclosing the information that falls under that exemption. The purposes of the Act 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. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. ISSUE A : Whether any of the records, to which access has been denied, are subject to the discretionary exemption provided by section 19 of the Act .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 22, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|