|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-119
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 880097
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Skills Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) a right to appeal any decision of a head to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. On March 11, 1988, the appellant made a request to the Ministry of Skills Development ( the "institution ") for the following information: 1. An alphabetical list of all current 309-A certificate holders in Essex and Kent County areas, including the following: (a) name of certificate holder (b) address of certificate holder (c) date of certification (d) social insurance number. 2. An alphabetical list of all current 309-A apprentices in Essex and Kent County areas including the following: (a) name of apprentice (b) address of apprentice (c) employer of apprentice (d) social insurance number 3. List of all electrical contractors or employers of a related nature (panel shop, motor winding shops etc.) who have employed persons who have qualified under the Futures program within the last 48 month period in the Essex and Kent County areas, including the following information for each employer: (a) employer's name and address (b) employee's name and address (c) length of funding approved. 2. On April 12, 1988, the institution responded, disclosing an alphabetical list of all current 309-A certificate holders under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act in the Essex and Kent County areas, and an alphabetical list of all current 309-A apprentices registered under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act in the Essex and Kent County areas. Access was denied to the following information: (1) address of certificate holder date of certificate social insurance number of certificate holder (2) address of registered apprentice employer of apprentice social insurance number of registered apprentice (3) employer's name and address employee's name and address length of funding approved under the Futures program. The institution claimed an exemption under subsection 21(1)(f) for the information in (1) and (2) above, and under subsection 17(1) for the information in (3) above. 3. On April 25, 1988, the requester appealed the institution's decision, and I gave notice of the appeal to the institution. 4. During the course of an investigation by an Appeals Officer from my staff, the institution clarified the reasons for its decision. Thus, the institution claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under subsection 21(3)(d) because it related to employment or educational history, under subsection 21(2)(f) (not 21(1)(f) as previously cited) because it was highly sensitive, and under subsection 21(2)(h) because it was supplied in confidence by the persons to whom it relates. 5. The institution provided to the Appeals Officer records which it stated were samples of the requested record. In an attempt to mediate a settlement, and at the request of the appellant, the Appeals Officer conveyed to the institution the appellant's reasons for requesting the record. However, this information was not sufficient to resolve the appeal, and so the matter proceeded to an inquiry. 6. On August 9, 1988, I sent notice to the appellant and the institution that I was conducting an inquiry to review the decision of the head. Enclosed with the Notice was a copy of a report prepared 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 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. 7. By letter to the appellant, dated September 30, 1988, the institution indicated that it was now willing to disclose the dates of certification of the 309-A certificate holders, and this information was sent to the appellant. The institution offered further clarification of its decision relating to the information requested in item (3), and claimed exemption for this information under subsection 21(1) and subsections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c). 8. In his representations, the appellant withdrew his request for the information under items (1) and (2) and limited his appeal to the denial of the following information: The names of all Futures participants who have been employed by electrical contractors and related employers in the Essex and Kent County areas during the past 48 months; The names of the electrical contractors and other related employers in Essex and Kent Counties who have employed Futures participants during the past 48 months. 9. The institution was informed by the Appeals Officer of the appellant's withdrawal of his request for some of the information, and the subsequent limitation in the scope of the appeal, and was afforded an opportunity to make further representations with respect to the information which was now the subject of the appeal. The institution withdrew its claim for exemption under subsection 17(1), and relied exclusively on the mandatory exemption provided under section 21. 10. After representations had been received from the institution and the appellant, the Appeals Officer conducted further investigations in order to clarify some outstanding issues. At this time the institution provided the Appeals Officer with an untitled record which it stated was the record which responded to the appellant's amended request. However, the Appeals Officer noticed a discrepancy between some of the facts on the face of the record, and some facts which had been provided by the appellant. The appellant stated that he had contacted approximately a dozen people whom he considered to fit within the class of people covered by the subject matter of the request. Th
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
10(1) custody or control
-
25(1)
-
29(1)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 16, 1989
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|