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

PO-1894

Document		PO-1894


File #		PA-000100-2


Institution/HIC		Ontario Realty Corporation


Summary		NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Ontario Realty Corporation (the ORC) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to all records referable to the Ontario Hospital Cemetery property (the property) located near Evans and Horner Avenues, Etobicoke, including various documents relating to the ORC's proposal selection process for the sale of the property. The ORC identified approximately 600 pages of records and, following third party notification, granted partial access to the requester. Access to the undisclosed records or portions of records was denied on the basis of one or more of the following exemption claims contained in the Act . section 13(1) - advice or recommendations sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) sections 18 (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) section 19 section 21 The ORC also identified six records which, in its view, were not responsive to the request. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the ORC's decision. During mediation, a number of things transpired: The parties resolved the issues concerning access to certain maps. Issues concerning continuing access to records were resolved. The parties agreed that duplicate records were not at issue. Accordingly, Records 203, 204, 206, 207, 281-282 and 419-513 have been removed form the scope of this appeal. The Mediator obtained the consent of one of the third parties to release that party's information, and the ORC disclosed Records 212, 213 and portions of Records 185, 187 and 205 to the appellant. Mediation was not successful in resolving the appeal, so the matter moved to the adjudication stage. I sent a Notice of Inquiry initially to the ORC and to three third parties whose interests may be affected by this appeal (the affected parties). The ORC and one affected party (the prospective purchaser) submitted representations in response. I then sent the Notice of Inquiry, along with the representations of the ORC and the non-confidential portions of the prospective purchaser's representations to the appellant, who provided a brief response. Status of the Sale of the Property The representations of the parties make reference to the status of the sale of the property. The ORC identifies that the property was advertised for sale in February 1998, and that a conditional Agreement of Purchase and Sale was executed a few months later. One of the conditions of the Agreement related to the zoning of the property, and the issue of the zoning was the subject of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB). Although the hearing of the OMB appeal has been completed, the ORC identifies that a decision by the OMB remains pending. Based on the information provided to me, it would appear that the actual sale of the property has not yet taken place. I will review the representations of the parties and make my decisions on that basis. RECORDS: There are approximately 225 pages of records remaining at issue in this appeal. They consist of the conditional Agreement of Purchase and Sale, documents relating to the offer, proposals and bidding process, negotiations and conditions relating to the sale of the property by the ORC. DISCUSSION: RESPONSIVENESS OF RECORDS The ORC takes the position that Records 345-347, 438 and 440-441 are not responsive to the request. These records can be described as follows: Record 345 - notes of a telephone discussion between an ORC employee and a citizen who was inquiring about the status of the property; Record 346 - notes of a telephone conversation between an ORC employee and an individual inquiring generally about lands near Evans Avenue; Record 347 - notes of a telephone inquiry regarding a public meeting; Record 438 - Record 440 Record 438 is a handwritten message that includes the names of two companies, and Record 440 is a copy of Record 438 containing additional fax information; Record 441 - a memorandum referring to the appellant's access request. The ORC submits that these records have "no bearing on and are not 'reasonably related' to the proposal stage, selection of a purchaser, or subsequent negotiations or agreement with the purchaser". Previous orders have established that in order to be responsive, a record must be "reasonably related" to the request. In Order P-880, former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg stated: In my view, the need for an institution to determine which documents are relevant to a request is a fundamental first step in responding to a request. It is an integral part of any decision by a head. The record itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimately be identified as being responsive to the request. I am of the view that, in the context of freedom of information legislation, "relevancy" must mean "responsiveness". That is, by asking whether information is "relevant" to a request, one is really asking whether it is "responsive" to a request. While it is admittedly difficult to provide a precise definition of "relevancy" or "responsiveness", I believe that the term describes anything that is reasonably related to the request. [See also Order P-1051] I agree with this statement, and will apply Adjudicator Fineberg's approach to my assessment of the six records identified by the ORC as non-responsive.


Legislation		FIPPA 17(1)(a) 18(1)(d) 21(1)(f) Section 19 13(1)


Signed by		Tom Mitchinson


Published		Apr 11, 2001


Type		Order


<< Back

Main Menu