|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-69
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) of the Act a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On February 8, 1988, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the "institution") received a request for access to "copies of proposals, reports, maps, and correspondence relating to boundary negotiations between the Village of Grand Bend and the Township of Bosanquet". 2. On April 28, 1988, the institution notified the requester in writing that partial access to some of the information requested would be granted. Access to certain other documents was denied on the basis of subsections 15(a), 15(b), 17(1)(a), 18(1)(e) and 21(3)(g) of the Act . 3. On May 13, 1988, the requester appealed this decision of the institution. I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 4. A copy of the record at issue was obtained and reviewed by the Appeals Officer assigned to the case. 5. Between May 13, 1988 and October 12, 1988, attempts were made to settle the appeal. On October 12, 1988, the institution sent a letter to the appellant re-defining the institution's position with respect to this appeal. However, as no progress was made toward disclosure of any portions of the record being withheld, no further efforts to mediate a settlement were made. 6. By letter dated January 31, 1989, I notified the appellant, the institution and the two municipalities involved (the Village of Grand Bend and the Township of Bosanquet) that I was conducting an inquiry into this matter. Enclosed with this letter was a copy of a report by the Appeals Officer, intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of 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. The Report is sent to all persons affected by the subject matter of the appeal. 7. All parties were invited to make written representations. 8. Representations were received from the institution, and further clarification of those representations was received. The appellant provided only those representations contained in his original letter of appeal. One of the two municipalities submitted a letter. I have considered all representations in making my Order. 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 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. Section 10 sets out a person's right of access to records as follows: 10.--(1) Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless the record or the part of the record falls within one of the exemptions under sections 12 to 22. (2) Where an institution receives a request for access to a record that contains information that falls within one of the exemptions under sections 12 to 22, the head shall disclose as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information that falls under one of the exemptions. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record falls within one of the specified exemptions in this Act lies upon the head. Background to this Appeal : The information at issue in this appeal came into the possession of the institution during the course of activities pursuant to the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, 1981 S.O. 1981 c.70 as amended. In its representations, the institution provided a detailed description of the process for settling municipal boundary disputes. The process is one of negotiation, and the institution argues vigorously that confidentiality is valuable in negotiation, particularly in the early stages. The institution acknowledged that after a certain point in the negotiations, the information can be made available for public scrutiny without jeopardizing the dispute settlement process as a whole. However, according to the institution, premature disclosure of information would put the negotiations into the public forum too soon, polarizing issues and reducing the opportunity for settlement. In a letter to me, one municipality reinforced the institution's position, suggesting that any disclosure should be "after a specified time frame". I can certainly understand and sympathize with the institution's position in this regard. Considerable public benefit flows from a process through which issues can be settled through mediation, in a constructive, non-adversarial way. However, my role as Commissioner is to interpret and apply the provisions of the Act as they relate to rights of access to information, and to possible exemptions from disclosure. I turn now to the issues raised with respect to the exemptions from disclosure under the Act . The issues arising in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the exemption provided by section 15 applies to any part of the record. B. Whether the exemption provided by subsection 17(1) applies to any part of the record. C. Whether the exemption provided by section 21 applies to any part of the record. D. Whether the exemption provided by subsection 18(1) applies to any part of the record. ISSUE A : Whether the exemption provided by section 15 applies to any part of the record. The institution seeks exemption under section 15 of the Act for some 36 records and documents and in some cases, portions of those records and documents. The institution's arguments focus on subsections 15(a) and (b). These subsectio
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
15(b)
-
18(1)(e)
-
17(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 28, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|