|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-987
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9500221
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: On April 1, 1992, the Ontario Cabinet approved a new Non-Tax Revenue Strategy (the strategy) designed in response to the government's need to improve customer service in the delivery of its programs and to increase revenues from non-tax sources. On July 7, 1992, the Fiscal Planning Branch of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics prepared a report to present an implementation plan for the new strategy. The report was titled "Implementation Plan, Non-Tax Revenue Strategy" (the implementation plan). The appellant is an individual who believes there is a link between the strategy and increases in the fees charged by various government ministries for performing certain services. For example, in April, 1992, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations established, by regulation, mandatory annual report filings with associated fees. The appellant maintains that the information contained in documents he has obtained under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) from the Ministries of Finance and Consumer and Commercial Relations, establishes a connection between the strategy and the passing of the regulation. The appellant seeks to establish the same link between the increases in estates fees which were established by Ont. Reg. 293/92, made on May 14, 1992. The regulation was made under the Administration of Justice Act , legislation administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry). NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request under the Act to the Ministry for access to the following six categories of information: (1) records describing and/or defining the strategy as it applies to the Ministry; (2) records and communications received by the Ministry advising it of the strategy and instructing its implementation; (3) records indicating the date that the strategy was approved by Cabinet; (4) records setting out the revenue expected to be raised by the Ministry as a result of the strategy; (5) records setting out the revenue expected to be raised through the fees for letters probate and letters of administration by the Ministry as a result of the strategy (including gross and net if operating costs were factored in); and (6) records relating how the determination was made by the Ministry that the fee increase should be as high as it was. The Ministry advised the appellant that no records responsive to parts 1-3 of his request existed. The Ministry denied access to records responsive to parts 4-6 of the request on the basis of the following exemptions contained in the Act : Cabinet records - sections 12(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) advice and recommendations - section 13(1) The appellant appealed both aspects of this decision. In his letter of appeal, the appellant identified specific documents which he alleged should exist in response to parts 1-3 of his request. He also objected to the fact that the Ministry failed to identify which records it claimed were responsive to parts 4-6. During the mediation of this appeal, the appellant forwarded numerous documents to this office in support of his position that more responsive records exist. With the appellant's agreement, these documents were attached to the Notice of Inquiry sent to the Ministry. A Notice of Inquiry was also forwarded to the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry indicates that it no longer relies on the application of the exemptions contained in sections 12(1)(a), (c), (e) and (f) of the Act . The records at issue in this appeal are: (1) Treasury Board submission, dated April 7, 1992, entitled: "Proposed Increase in Court Tariffs of Fees"; and (2) Spreadsheet analysis on Tariff of Fees (attachment to Record 1). Accordingly, the issues to be considered in this order are: (1) the existence of additional responsive records to parts 1-3 of the request; and (2) the application of sections 12(1)(b) and (d) and 13(1) of the Act to Records 1 and 2. THE EXISTENCE OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSIVE RECORDS In its submissions, the Ministry states that: ... in the process of preparing for this appeal, the Ministry conducted further searches and located several other documents responsive to the request. A decision letter with respect to these records will be sent out shortly. The affidavit attached to the Ministry's submissions indicates that these additional records were located in the Ministry's Courts Administration Division, Policy Development Division, Crown Law Office - Civil, and Finance Branch (Corporate Services Division). The Ministry has not provided copies of these documents to this office. Nor has it indicated whether, in its view, these records are responsive to parts 1-3 of the appellant's request. The Ministry has provided no information related to the searches it conducted with respect to this request and appeal. It may very well be that once the Ministry advises the appellant of the nature of the additional records it has located, the appellant will be satisfied that the Ministry has conducted reasonable searches to locate the responsive records. In these circumstances, I believe that the most expeditious way to deal with this matter is for me to consider the application of the exemptions to the two records the Ministry has identified to date. I will order the Ministry to issue a decision letter with respect to the additional records. Once the Ministry has done so, the appellant may appeal both the access decision and raise the issue of the existence of additional records if he is still not satisfied that the Ministry has located all responsive records. DISCUSSION: The records at issue in this appeal are the same as Records 1 and 2 referred to in Order P-920. In that order, I upheld the Ministry's application of section 12(1)(b) of the Act to deny access to these documents. The appellant in this case received a copy of the order and, based on that decision and other documents which have recently come to his attention, has made a number of submissions on the application of the exemptions claimed by the Ministry, that is, sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the Act . I will consider these submissions in the discussion which follows. CABINET RECORDS<
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Anita Fineberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Aug 29, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|