|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-142
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890227
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Liquor Control Board of Ontario January 25, 1990 VIA PRIORITY POST Appellant Dear Appellant: Re:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Order 142 Appeal Number 890227 Liquor Control Board of Ontario This letter constitutes my Order in your appeal from a decision by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the "institution"), regarding your request for records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (the " Act "). On June 23, 1989, the institution received your request for access to the following information: The report prepared by Mr. Bill Diamant relating to the issue of a license to sell liquor at [a specified location] in the Hamilton Airport. The report was prepared in the spring of 1988 and was referred to in a letter dated March 28, 1988 from L.F. Pitura (copy attached) and in a letter dated April 12, 1988, from Hon. Chris Ward (copy attached). On July 18, 1989, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinator for the institution (the "Co-ordinator") responded to your request in the following manner: Access is available to the report requested by you, a copy of which is enclosed. The second last paragraph on page 2 has been severed under Sec. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, since disclosure of this information would reveal advice or recommendations of an employee. On July 31, 1989, you wrote to my office appealing the institution's decision. Your letter of appeal stated that: We wish to appeal [the] decision to delete portions of the document on the following basis: (a) the record contains a study on the performance or efficiency of the premises utilized by [your client's name]; (b) it is a feasibility study relating to a government policy or project; (c) it is a report containing the results of field research undertaken before the formulation of policy; (d) it is the report of an interdepartmental task force established for the purposes of preparing a report; (e) it is a report prepared for the purposes of undertaking inquiries and making reports on recommendations. On August 4, 1989, I gave notice of the appeal to you and the institution. As you are aware, as soon as your appeal was received by my office, an Appeals Officer was assigned to investigate the circumstances of the appeal, and attempt to mediate a settlement. The Appeals Officer obtained and reviewed the record in issue which can be described as a two page memo which outlines the substance of a meeting between the author and your client. The meeting related to your client's request for authorization to sell duty free liquor at a specified location in Hamilton Airport. The second last paragraph on the second page has been severed in its entirety. The head's decision to sever this paragraph is the sole issue in the appeal. Since the appeal could not be resolved through mediation, a Notice of Inquiry was sent to you and the institution on November 29, 1989. An Appeals Officer's Report accompanied the Notice of Inquiry to assist you and the institution in making representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Report indicated that you and the institution need not limit yourselves to the questions set out in the report, in making representations. I have considered your representations and those of the institution in making my Order. Before beginning my discussion of the specific issues in this case, I think it would be useful to briefly outline the purposes of the Act as set out in section 1. Subsection 1(a) provides the right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and that necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Subsection 1(b) sets out the counter-balancing privacy protection purpose of the Act . This subsection provides that the Act should protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and should provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information. Section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the record falls within one of the specified exemptions of this Act lies upon the head. As previously indicated, the institution has cited subsection 13(1) as the basis for refusing to disclose the severed portion of the record. Subsection 13(1) of the Act provides that: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. The general purpose of the section 13 exemption has been discussed in Order 94 (Appeal Number 890137) dated September 22, 1989. At page 5 I stated that: ...in my view, section 13 was not intended to exempt all communications between public servants despite the fact that many can be viewed, broadly speaking, as advice or recommendations. As noted above, section 1 of the Act stipulates that exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. Accordingly, I have taken a purposive approach to the interpretation of subsection 13(1) of the Act . In my opinion, this exemption purports to protect the free flow of advice and recommendations within the deliberative process of government decision-making and policy-making. I addressed the section 13 exemption further in Order 118 (Appeal Number 890172) dated November 15, 1989. I stated at page 4 that: In my view, "advice" pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Act , must contain more than mere information. Generally speaking, advice pertains to the submission of a future course of action which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during the deliberative process. The institution's representations indicate that the record at issue in this appeal is a memo from Mr. W. Diamant, Director, Traffic and Customs Division to Mr. D. F. Wilcox, Vice President, Distribution Division. Both of these individuals are employees of the institution. The institution submits that the memo contains the advice or recommendations of Mr. Diamant to Mr. Wilcox with respect to whether or not your client should be permitted to sell duty free liquor at Hamilton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
13(2)
-
13(2)(a)
-
13(2)(f)
-
13(2)(g)
-
13(2)(h)
-
13(2)(j)
-
13(2)(k)
-
13(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Sidney Linden
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 25, 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|