|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R INTRODUCTION: This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , as amended (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 the head to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. On January 5, 1990, the undersigned was appointed Assistant Commissioner and received a delegation of the power to conduct inquiries and make orders under the Act . The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On March 28, 1989, the requester wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources (the "institution") to request access to "...copies of both the original and revised version of the provincial Crown Cottaging Study for the Crown Land Management Planning Program". 2. On April 5, 1989, the Executive Director of the Lands and Waters Group (the "Executive Director") responded on behalf of the institution and advised that "Access is denied to your request for a copy of the Crown Cottaging Study under Section 22(b) of the Act. This provision applies because current scheduling provides for a final publishing of the study by mid June". 3. On July 21, 1989, the Executive Director again wrote to the requester and advised that "...it is apparent that the consultants will require more time to complete the Study than was envisioned when I wrote you last. It is now anticipated that the document should be completed by the end of October, 1989." 4. On August 21, 1989, the requester wrote to this office and appealed the institution's decision. Notice of the appeal was sent to the institution and the appellant on August 23, 1989. 5. In accordance with our usual practice, the appeal was assigned to an Appeals Officer who conducted an investigation into the matter. In the course of this investigation, the Appeals Officer was advised by the Manager of Crown Land Development Section, Land Management Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, that the requested record was expected to be received by the institution in early October, 1989. The Manager anticipated that the record would be made publicly available shortly thereafter. The institution undertook to respond to the request by the end of October, 1989. 6. In a telephone conversation with the Appeals Officer on October 30, 1989, the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator (the "Co-ordinator") indicated that she and the Executive Director had reviewed the record and were of the view that no exemptions contained in the Act applied to exempt the record from disclosure other than the possible application of subsection 22(b). 7. On November 6, 1989, the Executive Director wrote to the appellant and advised that the requested record had been received by the institution on October 5, 1989. Further, the letter indicated that access was denied pursuant to subsection 22(b) of the Act due to the time required to publish the record. This letter also indicated that, barring unforeseen setbacks, it was the institution's intent "...to release the study [the record] both publicly and to you by November 25, 1989." The institution requested a $20.00 fee to cover the costs of printing and mailing the record. 8. On November 20, 1989, the appellant remitted the $20.00 fee requested by the institution. 9. On November 30, 1989, the Appeals Officer spoke with the Co-ordinator and was advised that the institution continued to exempt the requested record from disclosure pursuant to subsection 22(b) of the Act , because the Minister had not yet determined that the record could be made publicly available. On the basis of this information, the Appeals Officer formed the opinion that a settlement of the issues arising in this appeal was not possible. 10. By letters dated December 4, 1989, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the institution and the appellant. The Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a letter in lieu of the usual Appeals Officer's Report. The letter outlined the facts of the appeal and set out questions which paraphrased the sections of the Act which appeared to the Appeals Officer to be relevant to the appeal. The letter was intended to assist the parties in making representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. It further indicated that in making representations, the parties need not limit themselves to the questions set out therein. 11. On December 19, 1989, representations were received from the institution in which it stated that the entire record was now exempt from disclosure based on subsections 12(1)(b) and (c), or in the alternative, subsections 12(1)(d), 12(1)(e), or 13(1) of the Act . The institution further stated that this change in position was due to a change in Minister. The institution advised that the new Minister (appointed August 2, 1989) read the record, and decided it would be inappropriate to make it available to the public. 12. By telephone on December 13, 1990, the Appeals Officer was advised by the appellant that he had received a letter from the institution advising him that it was now relying upon new exemptions, as cited above. 13. On or about March 4, 1990, I received extensive, written representations from the appellant wherein he claimed that the entire record should be disclosed based on subsection 13(3) and sections 11 and 23 of the Act . 14. I have considered all representations and supporting documentation in making this Order. BACKGROUND: As part of the Crown Land Cottaging Program reinstated by the institution in July 1987, the institution retained Woods Gordon Management Consultants to conduct a detailed market and socio-economic assessment of the implications of releasing more crown land for cottaging. The Crown Land Cottaging Study (the "Study") consists of: a) Letter from Ernst & Young Consulting to Mr. Frank Sh
|