|
|
Document
|
|
P-128
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890194
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Labour December 5, 1989 VIA PRIORITY POST Appellant Dear Appellant: Re:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Order 128 Appeal Number 890194 Ministry of Labour This letter constitutes my Order in your appeal of the decision by the Ministry of Labour (the "institution"), to refuse access to records requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act "). The appeal file indicates that on February 3, 1989, you wrote to the institution asking for access to the following records: Copies of all background papers, draft statutory language, draft language for regulations, Workers' Compensation Board procedures and policies, exchanged between the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board on the subject of Bill 162, or generated for internal use by either the Ministry of Labour or by the Workers' Compensation Board. On May 29, 1989, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") wrote to you pointing out that you had submitted requests for similar types of records to two other institutions, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Workers' Compensation Board. To avoid confusion, the Co-ordinator informed you that each institution would restrict its response to records which originated in that institution. Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour's response related to all background papers on Bill 162 which did not originate with the Workers' Compensation Board, and the Ministry of the Attorney General responded to the portion of your request which involved draft language of Bill 162. The institution identified a total of 17 records which appeared to fall within the scope of your request. Nine of these records were identified by their titles and approximate length, and you were advised that they would be released in their entirety, subject to payment of photocopying charges. The remaining eight records were all exempted by the institution pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act . One record was also found by the institution to be exempt under subsection 17(1)(b) of the Act . On June 22, 1989, you sent me a letter appealing the head's decision to deny access to the eight records, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution on July 4, 1989. You did not appeal the head's decision to charge a fee for the remaining nine records. As you are aware, as soon as your appeal was received by my office, an Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal and attempt to mediate a settlement. The Appeals Officer obtained and reviewed the eight exempted records, and spoke with the Co-ordinator regarding possible settlement. Following their discussions, the Co-ordinator and the Appeals Officer both concluded that settlement was not possible, and the Co-ordinator requested that the matter proceed to the inquiry stage of the appeals process. Accordingly, on October 3, 1989, I sent notice to you and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head, and invited representations from you and the institution. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a report prepared by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist you and the institution in making representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal 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 appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report indicates that the parties, in making their representations to the Commissioner, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the Report. I have received and considered representations from you and the institution in making my decision in this appeal. The following records are at issue in this appeal: 1. Discussion paper entitled "Compensating Permanent Partial Disability" by C. Muir, December 9, 1987. 2. Memo from C. Muir to B. Rea re: Permanent Partial Disability Benefit Reform, February 6, 1988. 3. Options paper on Non-Ecomonic Loss by B. Rea, February 22, 1988. 4. Summary of Ministry of Labour consultations - Rights to Reinstatement by B. Rea, undated. 5. Discussion paper entitled "Injured Workers' Rights of Reinstatement" by B. Rea, undated. 6. Excerpt of draft discussion paper entitled "Compensating Economic Loss", author and date unknown. 7. Excerpt of draft discussion paper entitled "Appendix II - Model B", author and date unknown. 8. Excerpt of draft discussion paper entitled "Injured Workers' Reinstatement Rights - Recommendations", author and date unknown. 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 custody or 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 counterbalancing 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 where a head refuses access to a record, the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act lies upon the head. The issue in this appeal is whether the requested records qualify for exemption under subsection 13(1) of the Act . (It should be noted that the institution's claim for exemption under subsection 17(1) was dropped during the course of the appeal.) Subsection 13(1) reads as follows: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. Recently I had the opportunity to consider the application of section 13 in my Order 94 (Appeal Number 890137), dated September 22, 1989. At page 5 of that Order, I outlined the proper interpretation of the scope of the subsection 13(1) exemption as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
1(a)(i)
-
1(a)(ii)
-
13(2)
-
Section 23
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 05, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|