|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R 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 subsection 24(1) a right to appeal any decision under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 1, 1989, a request was made to the Ministry of Labour (the "institution") for the following information: ...any and all information relating to the amendment to section 12(1) of the Employment Standards Act , R.S.O. 1980, c. 137 contained in Bill 85, which was introduced on or about June 15, 1987... specifically ... any memoranda, legal and otherwise, opinions, policy papers and any other background information prepared by or for the Ministry of Labour in preparation for the amendment of section 12(1). 2. On May 23, 1989, the institution responded granting access to some records, and denying access to others pursuant to sections 12, 13, and 19 of the Act . 3. On June 7, 1989, the requester wrote to me appealing the head's decision, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 4. The records were obtained and examined by the Appeals Officer assigned to the case, and efforts were made by the Appeals Officer to mediate a settlement. 5. During the course of mediation, the Appeals Officer asked the institution to clarify its letter regarding access, which stated that there were "twelve documents which fall within the scope" of the appellant's request and that access was denied to six of the records but granted to seven records. The Appeals Officer confirmed that one record that had been released by the institution was not, in fact, related to the appellant's request and it constituted the thirteenth record referred to in the institution's letter. 6. Also during mediation, the Appeals Officer confirmed with the appellant that the severance of a record to which access had been granted was not at issue in this appeal. After receiving a copy of the portion of the record which had been severed, the Appeals Officer was able to confirm that the material severed was not related to the appellant's request. 7. At the Appeals Officer's request, the institution again reviewed the records at issue, and released one further record to the appellant. 8. Mediation efforts with respect to the remaining five records were unsuccessful, and by letter dated September 12, 1989, I notified the institution and the appellant that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. 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 appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal, and sets out questions which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. 9. I received representations from the institution and the appellant, and have considered the representations of both parties in reaching my decision. The following is a list of the records at issue in this appeal, which I have numbered for convenience in identifying individual records: #1. Cabinet submission dated May 29, 1987 (only pages two and three are relevant); #2. Memorandum dated June 19, 1987 from the Directors of the Employment Standards and the Industrial Adjustment Branches to the Assistant Deputy Minister, the Director, Legal Services Branch and the Director, Policy Branch; #3. Paper dated December 10, 1986, from an individual in the Minister's office, responding to a policy branch document. The paper relates to record #4, and only item 2 on page three is relevant; #4. A Policy Branch discussion paper dated December 23, 1986, titled "Reform of Termination of Employment Legislation and Establishment of a Commission of Employment-threatened Companies" which deals with a range of issues. Only part of this record is relevant to the appellant's request. #5. Correspondence dated June 4, 1987 from a law firm to the Legal Branch of the institution. The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 12(1)(b) of the Act . B. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act . C. Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 19 of the Act . D. If the answer to issues A, B or C is answered in the affirmative, whether any exempt records can reasonably be severed, under subsection 10(2) of the Act , without disclosing the information that falls under an exemption. E. Whether there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records exempted under section 13 that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemptions, as provided by section 23 of the Act . The purposes of the Act as set out in section 1 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 should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . This subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to information about themselves held by institutions, and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own information. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record or part of a record falls within one of the specified exemptions lies upon the head. ISSUE A : Whether any of the records are properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 12(1)(b) of the Act . Subsection 12(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows: 12.--(1) A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the sub
|