|
|
Document
|
|
P-36
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880030
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology This appeal was 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 su
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Order are as follows: On January 1, 1988, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology (the "institution") received a request for access to "a copy of the contract implementing Ontario's memorandum of understanding with General Motors and Suzuki for the establishment of an automotive assembly plant at Ingersoll, Ontario." Upon receipt of the request, the head issued notice to an affected person in accordance with section 28 of the Act and received representations from that affected person. On March 4, 1988, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator wrote to the requester advising that partial access to the record was allowed and that "...the contract is severed under section 10(2) and section 17(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Act , as disclosure of commercial and/or financial information could reasonably be expected to: (a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of an organization; (b) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied; or (c) result in undue loss or gain to any person or group." A copy of the severed record was sent to the requester. By letter to me dated March 6, 1988, the requester appealed the head's decision. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution and the affected party (the "third party"). The record at issue in the appeal was obtained and reviewed by an Appeals Officer from my staff, and between March 6 and July 14, 1988 attempts were made to mediate a settlement among the parties. As a result of mediation, the institution disclosed some of the information originally severed from the record, and the appellant narrowed the scope of his appeal to the severed information contained in Schedule "G" of the record. By letter dated July 14, 1988, I notified the institution, the appellant and the third party that I was conducting an inquiry into this matter and enclosed a copy of the Appeals Officer's Report. On July 27, 1988, I wrote to the three parties inviting them to make written representations on the issues arising from the appeal. I received representations from all parties and have considered them in making my Order. The information contained in the record at issue in this appeal relates to: (a) the type of infrastructure support to be provided and the division of this support into government and non-government; (b) the nature and specification of Ontario Government obligations in relation to the provision of infrastructure; (c) the contribution, in dollar amounts, of the Ontario Government and local municipalities towards the payment of costs of the government-supported infrastructure, and (d) the nature and description of non-government infrastructure support. It should be noted at the outset that the purposes of the Act as defined in subsections 1(a) and (b) are: (a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that, (i) information should be available to the public, (ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and, ... (b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions... The sole issue arising in this appeal is: Whether any of the severed portions of Schedule "G" (the record) are properly subject to exemption from release pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 . Subsection 17(1) reads as follows: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, (a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; (b) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied; or (c) result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency. In order for the subsection 17(1) exemption to apply, the information at issue must meet a three-part test: the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and the information must have been supplied to the institution in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and the prospect of disclosure of the record must give rise to a reasonable expectation that one of the types of harm specified in (a), (b) or (c) of subsection 17(1) will occur. Failure to satisfy the requirements of any part of this test will render the subsection 17(1) exemption claim invalid. After considering the representations from all parties and examining the record at issue in this appeal, I find that the requirements of all three parts of the section 17 test have not been met. I will address each of the three parts separately, with particular emphasis on part three which I have relied on most strongly in reaching my decision. Test - Part 1 In determining whether the first part of the test has been satisfied, I must consider whether disclosure of information contained in the record would reveal a "trade secret, or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information." The institution and the third party both argue that the severed portions of Schedule "G" contain information which is "technical, commercial or financial" in nature. In support of this position, the third party submits the following arguments: technical - "...the numerical information contained in Schedule "G" is arguably of a technical nature since specifications and requirements for sewage, hydro, natural gas and water represent some of the technical specifications for the successful operation of the p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
17(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 28, 1988
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|