IPC - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

Français

Site Map

Advanced Search

Subject Index Listing

Reconsideration Table

Judicial Review of Municipal Orders

Judicial Review of Provincial Orders

Judicial Review of Privacy Complaint Reports

The Acts

Recent Orders

P-1526

Document		P-1526


File #		P-9700294


Institution/HIC		Ontario Insurance Commission


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant submitted a two-part request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) to the Ontario Insurance Commission (the OIC) asking for the following: 1. Copies of documents filed by 13 insurance companies with the OIC pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of section 411/412 most current rates filings made under the Insurance Act . 2. Whether submissions made by the 13 insurance companies pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of section 411/412 current rates filings contain any indication that these companies are claiming protection of section 17 of the [ Act ] with respect to such submissions. The OIC identified responsive records and denied access to them based on the exemptions contained in sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act . The appellant appealed the OIC's decision to deny access. The appellant also indicated in the letter of appeal that the OIC did not respond to the second part of the request in its decision letter. This office provided a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, the OIC and 13 companies (the affected parties) who appear to have an interest in some of the records at issue in the appeal. Representations were received from all parties. RECORDS: There are 13 records at issue, comprising 45 pages. These records consist of the most current rates filings made under section 411/412 of the Insurance Act with respect to the 13 affected parties. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: SCOPE OF THE REQUEST The appellant indicates that part two of the request specifically asked whether the filings provided by the 13 affected parties contained any indication that the companies were claiming the protection of section 17 of the Act with respect to those filings. The appellant indicates that the OIC failed to respond to this part of the request. The appellant acknowledges that this request was for information about a document rather than for disclosure of the document itself. However, the appellant submits that the information sought is or should be contained on the records themselves and should therefore be accessible under the Act . The appellant indicates that it requires this information to enable it to fully respond to the issue of "confidentiality" found in the three-part test in section 17(1) of the Act . The OIC indicates that it did not respond to this part of the request because it considered this issue to be irrelevant since access to the records was being denied. In this regard, the OIC explains that regardless of whether or not an insurer explicitly or implicitly claims confidentiality for any material submitted, it is the head's decision as to whether section 17 of the Act applies. The OIC submits further that since access to the records responsive to the first part of the request was being denied, responding to the second part of the request would have been tantamount to providing access to part of the record. I have considered the representations of both parties on this issue. In my view, the appellant's request should have been interpreted as asking for a copy of a written indication by any of the 13 affected parties that they were claiming protection under section 17(1) of the Act . The OIC states in its representations that in some cases a covering letter indicates that confidentiality is being claimed and in other cases certain pages are marked as "confidential". The OIC indicates further that in some cases this claim is not explicitly made. I do not agree with the OIC that this part of the request was irrelevant as access to the information requested in the first part of the request was being denied. Nor do I agree that responding to, or even disclosure of, records or parts of records responsive to this request would be tantamount to providing access to part of the record (for which section 17 has been claimed). Section 10(2) makes it very clear that if an institution received a request for access to a record that contains information which falls within one of the exemptions under the Act , the head shall disclose as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information that falls under one of the exemptions. This was a separate request for a different category of information as that requested in the first part of the request. A negative response to the first part of the request has no bearing on whether the second part should be responded to by the OIC. It is clear that such a caution either exists or does not exist for each affected party. In my view, where it appears on individual pages, such a caution could be severable from the information responsive to the first part of the request. Further, the OIC has admitted that it might be contained on an entirely separate record. In my view, the OIC should have responded separately to this part of the request. Accordingly, I find that the OIC has not fully responded to the appellant's request. The appellant indicates that it needs to know the information it requested in the second part of the request in order to fully respond to the section 17(1) claim made for the records responsive to the first part. I do not agree that this information is necessary at this time. I note that the appellant has made extensive representations on the issue of confidentiality, despite not knowing which or if any of the affected parties made a claim, and its position is very clear on this point. The records at issue in this appeal are very specific to the first part of the request and may or may not be the only records which contain the information requested in the second part of the request. It is not clear whether the appellant wishes this information solely for the purpose stated or whether there is another reason for asking for it. I have no evidence before me, however, to indicate that the appellant does not wish to pursue this issue to its conclusion. Therefore, I will order the OIC to issue a proper decision with respect to the second part of the request in accordance with the provisions of section 26 of the Act .


Legislation		FIPPA 17(1)(a), (b) & (c) 52(13)


Subject Index		trade secret


Signed by		Laurel Cropley


Published		Feb 03, 1998


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu