|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-010200-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a request to the Ministry of the Environment (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) on February 28, 2001 for access to information relating to the operation of a named base metal refinery in Port Colborne. The requested information covered the period 1970 to the date of the request, and included field orders, control orders, certificates of approval, air monitoring data, records relating to metal contamination, soil sampling results, surface water and sediment sampling data and various studies, reports, correspondence, minutes of meetings, memos, e-mail messages, notes of meetings and telephone calls. On March 9, 2001, the Ministry wrote to the appellant confirming receipt of the request, and indicated that a further response would be forthcoming. Having received no further response, the appellant filed a "deemed refusal" appeal with this office on May 29, 2001. That appeal was resolved when the Ministry issued a decision letter to the appellant on June 11, 2001. This decision contained both an interim access decision concerning the responsive records (with reference to the exemptions that might apply) and a fee estimate of $5,723. The Ministry advised the appellant in the decision letter that it required payment of 50% of the fee estimate ($2,861.50) before it would proceed further. The Ministry also indicated that, because of the number of records involved, it was extending the time to complete the request under section 27 of the Act by three months. Because of the unanticipated costs associated with the request, the appellant asked the Ministry for a list of the types of records included in the various responsive files. The appellant eventually received what it described as an "incomplete" list that, in its view, could not possibly account for the approximately 25,000 pages of records referred to in the fee estimate decision. The appellant asked whether it could pay the costs associated with retrieving these records, and then review them on site before incurring any photocopy charges. The Ministry advised the appellant that it did not have sufficient staff resources to agree to this suggestion. On September 5, 2001 the requester submitted what it considered to be a narrowed request to the Ministry. This request referred to the file number assigned by the Ministry and read, in part, as follows: In an effort to obtain necessary documents in a timelier and less costly fashion I am narrowing my original request to the following documents: - Dustfall and high volume air sampling data (included in the list of documents identified by the Ministry) - All orders (including control orders, stop orders, director's orders, provincial officers orders and field orders) issued to the [named] facility in Port Colborne from 1970 to 1984 regarding air discharges - All certificates of approval issued to the [named] facility in Port Colbourne from 1970 to 1984 that related to air discharges - All correspondence between [an affected party and the Ministry] related to metal air discharges from the [named] facility from 1970 to 1984. In its second request letter, the appellant raised two new concerns. First, that its identity as a requester was being disclosed to Ministry employees outside the Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator's Office; and second, that requests made by the appellant "are often delayed due to the contentious [issues] management process at the cabinet level". The appellant also asked that the fee be waived, and identified its reasons for requesting a waiver. The appellant wrote to this office on November 22, 2001, appealing the fact that it had not received a decision from the Ministry in response to the September 5, 2001 narrowed request, despite assurances from the Ministry that a decision would be forthcoming. In the appeal letter, the appellant submitted that the Ministry should either issue a decision letter or transmit the records forthwith and reimburse the appellant for costs incurred as a result of the delay. Because of the nature of the issues raised, this appeal proceeded directly to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry initially, outlining the issues raised in the new appeal. The Ministry submitted representations in response, which were provided to the appellant along with a copy of the Notice. The appellant also provided representations. DISCUSSION: COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT Was the Ministry in a situation of non-compliance with the Act ? The Ministry was asked to comment on whether it had properly discharged its statutory obligation to respond to the appellant's September 5, 2001 access request, with specific reference to section 26 of the Act. That section states: Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Mar 12, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|