|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2112
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-020055-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF APPEAL: The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, now the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: A copy of the contract between Ontario Place and [a named company] for the provision of food services. I believe it was signed in 1998 or 1999. Any documentation pertaining to [the named company's] decision to pull out of Ontario Place this past summer. Any documentation relating [to] the reimbursement of [the named company] by Ontario Place for monies invested in the amusement park. In its response, the Ministry advised the requester that it was undertaking a search for responsive records, and that it would notify the requester of the results of the search and its decision on access. The Ministry also stated that it was "likely" the records would contain information relating to the company named in the request (the affected party) that is exempt under section 17 of the Act (third party information), and that it would be required to notify that party of the request pursuant to section 28. At the same time, the Ministry notified the affected party of the request and sought its views on disclosure of certain responsive records the Ministry had located. In particular, the Ministry sought the affected party's views on the applicability of section 17 to these records, copies of which the Ministry provided to the affected party. In turn, the affected party provided the Ministry with submissions on disclosure, indicating that it consented to disclosure of some of the records, but not to others, on the basis of the exemption at section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act . Later, the affected party made additional submissions to the Ministry on the applicability of section 19, as well as section 17. The Ministry then wrote to the requester advising that it had located 13 responsive records consisting of 126 pages. The Ministry granted the requester access to Records 2 and 3 in full, and Records 1 and 13 in part, and denied access to Records 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in their entirety. The Ministry relied on the application of the exemptions at sections 17 and 19 (described above), as well as sections 13 (advice or recommendations) and 18 (economic interests of government). The Ministry included an index of the responsive records with its decision letter. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the decision of the Ministry stating, "I believe this information is in the public interest and would appreciate your consideration on the matter." As a result, the "public interest override" provision in section 23 of the Act was added as an issue in the appeal. During the mediation stage of the appeal, the appellant confirmed that she was not seeking the information identified as non-responsive on page 5 of Record 13. The appellant also confirmed that Record 1, pages 3-5 of Record 5 and Record 6 could be removed from the scope of this appeal. In addition, the Ministry clarified that it was relying on sections 17(1)(a) and (c) and 18(1)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Act . I sent a Notice of Inquiry setting out the issues in the appeal initially to the Ministry and the affected party. Both made representations in response. I then provided the appellant with the non-confidential portions of the Ministry's representations only, along with the Notice of Inquiry. The appellant provided representations in response. The appellant's representations address the application of the section 23 "public interest override" only. I then shared these representations with the Ministry, and invited it to provide reply representations on the application of section 23. The Ministry submitted reply representations on that issue. RECORDS: The records remaining at issue in this appeal are described as follows: Record Number Description Withheld in full or in part Exemption claimed 4 Letter from the affected party to Ontario Place Corporation (OPC) dated August 31, 2000 giving notice of termination of a licensing agreement Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 5 (Pages 1-2 only) Letter from OPC to the affected party dated August 31, 2000 responding to the notice of termination Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 7 Letter from OPC to the Minister of Tourism dated September 8, 2000 re: notice of termination Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 8 "Report on the Review of the Termination of the Licence Agreement" between OPC, the affected party and another named company (a subsidiary of the affected party) prepared by the Internal Audit Division of Management Board Secretariat dated October 2000 Withheld in full 13, 17, 18, 19 9 Letter from the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to the affected party dated May 16, 2001 re: settlement Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 10 Minutes of Settlement and Mutual Release between OPC and the affected party dated April, 2001 Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 11 Acknowledgements from OPC and the affected party dated May 18, 2001 re: payment Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 12 Letter from the affected party to OPC dated May 18, 2001 re: notice of claim dated March 14, 2001 Withheld in full 17, 18, 19 13 (except for non-responsive portion on page 5) "[Affected party] Settlement with [OPC]: Issues Management Strategy" dated from April 17, 2001 to June 14, 2001 Disclosed in part 13, 17, 18, 19 DISCUSSION: SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Introduction Section 19 of the Act reads: A head may refuse to disclose a record that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or that was prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
Section 19
-
Section 23
-
13(1)
-
17(1)
-
18(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Feb 17, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|