|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010241-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to records relating to applications completed by the requester on behalf of two companies pursuant to the Ontario Mineral Exploration Program Act (the ONEPA ) between 1985 and 1991. The Ministry located records responsive to the request and, pursuant to section 28 of the Act , notified a representative of the two companies, seeking their views on the disclosure of the subject records. The companies objected to the disclosure of the information contained in the records to the requester on the basis that it fell within the ambit of the mandatory exemptions in sections 17(1) and (2) of the Act . The Ministry then decided to disclose the records, with certain severances of what it considered to be exempt information under section 17(1) of the Act , to the requester and notified the companies of its intention to do so. The companies, now the appellants, appealed the Ministry's decision to disclose any portions of the records to the requester. The original requester did not appeal the Ministry's decision to withhold access to certain portions of the records under section 17(1) and indicated that he is not seeking access to any of the financial information contained in the application forms. Rather, he is seeking access only to those portions of the forms which show the name of the company, its address and signatory, along with the date of the application. Mediation of the appeal was not successful and the matter was transferred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I decided to seek the representations of the appellants, initially, as the companies are the parties resisting disclosure. I did not receive any representations from the appellants. Because of the manner in which I have addressed the application of section 17(2) in this order, it was not necessary for me to seek the submissions of either the Ministry or the original requester. The records at issue in this appeal consist of portions of ten pages of application forms relating to the Ontario Mineral Exploration Program. DISCUSSION: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION Section 17(1) of the Act provides: 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; (c) result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; or (d) reveal information supplied to or the report of a conciliation officer, mediator, labour relations officer or other person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute. For a record to qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(a), (b) or (c), the appellant, as the party resisting disclosure, must satisfy each part of the following 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 Ministry 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 harms specified in (a), (b) or (c) of subsection 10(1) will occur. [Orders 36, P-373, M-29 and M-37] The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in upholding Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson's Order P-373 stated: With respect to Part 1 of the test for exemption, the Commissioner adopted a meaning of the terms which is consistent with his previous orders, previous court decisions and dictionary meaning. His interpretation cannot be said to be unreasonable. With respect to Part 2, the records themselves do not reveal any information supplied by the employers on the various forms provided to the WCB. The records had been generated by the WCB based on data supplied by the employers. The Commissioner acted reasonably and in accordance with the language of the statute in determining that disclosure of the records would not reveal information supplied in confidence to the WCB by the employers. Lastl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 19, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|