|
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 November 8, 1988, a request was made to the Ministry of Skills Development (the "institution") for the following information:
Copies of all documents, including Inspectors' Reports and Notices of Violation issued by the Enforcement Services of your Ministry:
1. by Enforcement Officer Arnett at the Toyota Plant in Cambridge Ontario with respect to Pro-Insul Limited on or about September 21, 1988; and
2. by Enforcement Officer Sincennes at the Lennox Generating Station in Bath Ontario with respect to Dewar Insulation Inc. on or about October 6, 1988.
2. On December 2, 1988, the institution responded as follows:
Your request for access to the entire record is denied on the basis of ss. 14(1)(a) and (b) and s. 14(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987. The Apprenticeship Branch advises us that both matters are under investigation as a result of a complaint and are not the subject of routine investigations.
3. On December 22, 1988, 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 institution wrote to the Appeals Officer on May 2, 1989, offering to disclose part of each of the records to the appellant, with severances. However, the institution subsequently withdrew its offer. In the same May 2, 1989 letter, the institution stated that it was reserving its right to rely on sections 13, 17, 19 and 21 of the Act as additional grounds for exempting the records.
6. Also during mediation, the appellant agreed that the names of individual workers could be severed from the records. He further notified the Appeals Officer that he was withdrawing the portion of his request dealing with the Toyota Plant in Cambridge and Pro-Insul Limited, but wished to continue his appeal regarding the Lennox Generating Station and Dewer Insulation Inc.
7. Mediation efforts with respect to all other issues were not successful, and by letter dated October 31, 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.
8. I received representations from the institution and the appellant. In its representations, the institution withdrew its claim for exemption under sections 13 and 17 of the Act. The institution also agreed to provide the appellant with a copy of Form 1 of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, on the basis that it was a public document.
9. I have considered the representations of both parties in reaching my decision in this appeal.
|