|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) and the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection Act (the Act ) for access to certain records relating to the Emergency Planning for Aboriginal Issues Interministerial Committee and/or Ipperwash Provincial Park. Specifically, the request was for all handwritten notes, facsimiles, computer files and e-mail communications sent and received from September 1, 1995 to September 15, 1995 for four named individuals (named individuals 1, 2, 3 and 4). The request also included any facsimiles sent by named individual 1 to a fifth named individual on May 28, 1996. The Ministry represented both itself and ONAS throughout the request and appeal stages of this matter. The Ministry located approximately 1,340 pages of responsive records for named individuals 1, 2 and 3, and granted access to approximately 350 pages in whole or in part. The Ministry advised the requester that it could not locate any responsive records relating to named individual 4, and did not respond to the part of the request concerning the fifth named individual. The Ministry denied access to the remaining records and parts of records related to named individuals 1, 2 and 3 on the basis of one or more of the following exemptions contained in the Act : Cabinet records - section 12(1) advice or recommendations - section 13(1) law enforcement - section 14(1) relations with other governments - section 15 valuable government information/economic and other interests - section 18(1) solicitor-client privilege - section 19 •danger to safety or health - section 20 •invasion of privacy - section 21 The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access, and claimed that the Ministry's decision letter failed to meet the requirements of section 29 of the Act . After the appeal was filed, the Ministry located responsive records for named individual 4 and one record relating to the fifth named individual. The Ministry issued a separate decision letter covering these records, and they will not be addressed in this order. The Ministry divided the records into three groups and numbered them in accordance with the first initial of the last name of each of the three named individuals (e.g. C1, J1 and M1). I will be using this numbering system throughout the order. During mediation, the appellant decided not to pursue access to records relating to the meeting minutes of September 5 and 6, 1995 (C11-13, C17-19, J28-30, J47-48, J50-51, J53-54, M1-3 and M11-12), and any telephone numbers contained in the records. Therefore, these records and all duplicate copies have been removed from the scope of the appeal. Because sections 14(1) and 20 of the Act were claimed only for certain telephone numbers, these exemptions are also no longer at issue. Also during mediation, the appellant decided not to pursue access to any personal information which the Ministry claimed was contained in the records, and information relating to external mediation services. However, the appellant made it clear that if any records contain the views or activities of government officials, this information remained at issue. The records to which section 21 (invasion of personal privacy) was claimed, which include the telephone numbers identified in the preceding paragraph, are C14, C15, C20, C21, C38 and C55; J31, J32, J47, J48, J49, J50, J51, J53, J54, J81, J146 (in part), J163, J173, J174, J175, J176, J177, J182, J188, J197-201, J295, J313, J331 and J332; and M11, M12, M64, M65, M66, M67, M68, M70, M121-122, M127-128, M136-137, M184, M185, M186, M194, M195, M196, M204, M205, M206, M222, M253, M269, M270, M296 (in part), M297 (in part), M298 (in part) and M320. None of the withheld information in these records relates to government officials and, therefore, these records are no longer at issue in this appeal. Finally, the appellant claimed that there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the records, and they should be disclosed pursuant to section 23 of the Act . The records remaining at issue consist of briefing notes, issue notes and drafts, fact sheets, chronologies, options, recommendations, memoranda, correspondence and e-mail communications, policy frameworks and drafts, plans, procedures, guidelines, handwritten notes, legal documents, legal opinions, and handwritten notes relating to legal matters and legal research. This office sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the Ministry withdrew the section 13(1) claim for part of Record M73, and the section 19 claim for Records M380, C254, C281 and C324-326. Because section 19 was the only exemption claimed for Records C254, C281 and C324-326, and no mandatory exemptions apply to these records, they should be disclosed to the appellant. It should be noted that Record C325 is a blank page. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: Adequacy of the Ministry's decision letter In his letter of appeal, the appellant complained that the Ministry's decision letter failed to meet the requirements of section 29 of the Act . Specifically, the appellant objected to the fact that the decision did not set out the specific exemptions or subsections being claimed, only the general section number, nor did it explain the reasons why the exemptions apply. This issue was not raised in the Notice of Inquiry and the appellant has not referred to it further in his representations. The Notice describes the records, explains the exemptions which have been relied on, and the onus requirements under the Act . In addition, although the Ministry's decision letter did not identify specific subsections for individual exemption claims, the severed records disclosed to the appellant include subsection references for the withheld portions. In my view, despite the inadequacies of the Ministry's decision letter, through the actions of this office the appellant was provided with sufficient information to enable him to address the issues in this appeal. This is not the first instance where t
|